HARBANS KAUR vs PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING And DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

SMT. Harbans Kaur w/o Sh. Surjit Singh complainant applied to the opposite parties, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authorty through its Chief Administrator, Chandigarh on 17.12.1984 for allotment of a residental plot measuring 500 sq. yards in Urban Estate, Mohali within earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- in response to an advertisement of the opposite parties, and her application was registered at Registration No. 587. It has been alleged that her registration number was changed to 778 by the opposite party No. 2. As per version of the complainant, she received a notice dated 1st July, 1994 from the opposite party No. 2 in the month of July, 1994 by which she was informed that she being an old applicant, the erstwhile Punjab Housing Development Board had decided to give her a last chance to become eligible for preferential allotment in the proposed new Sectors 67, 68 and 69 and she was asked to give her option for allotment of plot at the revised price and to deposit additional amount by way of earnest money to complete 10% earnest money @ Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yard and also to furnish a fresh affidavit. The complainant in response to the aforesaid notice dated 1.7.1994 sent her option to the opposite party No. 2 on 20.7.1994 within the stipulated period along with her fresh affidavit, She also informed the opposite party No. 2 that she had already sent Draft No. EL- 492548 dated 6.5.1994 for Rs. 50,000/- on 23.5.1994. Thus the complainant completed all the formalities for the allotment of plot as required by the opposite parties and the opposite parties never pointed out any deficiency in completion of formalities till the draw was held on 1.8.1995.

AS per narration of the complainant, a draw for the allotment of plot numbers to the old eligible applicants who had completed the formalities and deposited 10% earnest money @ Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yard upto 29.7.1994 was held on 1.8.1995. The complainant was successful for the allotment of plot No. 3012, Sector 69, Mohali measuring 500 sq. yards. After the draw was held on 1.8.1995, the opposite party No. 2 adopted the policy of pick and choose in the matter of issuing allotment letters to a number of successful applicants in respect of their plots at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard but did not issue the allotment letter to the complainant in respect of her plot without any justification although she had completed all the formalities for allotment and was successful in the draw. The complainant asserted that about 10 months after the draw, opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 15.5.1994 asked the complainant to furnish the affidavits and also to attend his office on any working day, while such documents in other cases were demanded in the allotment letters. The complainant attended the office of opposite party No. 2 on 14.6.1996 and submitted the copy of her Ration Card, Thumb Impression attested by the Magistrate and an affidavit along with photograph, but no allotment letter was issued even thereafter. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 a number of times to enquire about allotment letter but nothing happened till March, 1997. In the month of March, 1997, the allotment letter of plot No. 3012, Sector 69, Mohali for which the complainant was successful in the draw held on 1.8.1995 was issued to her by the opposite party No. 2 vide No. 57 dated 26.3.1997 but the price of the plot was changed to Rs. 1,800/- instead of Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard the price prevalent at the time of draw. There was no decision to charge the price at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1,800/- per sq. yard the applicants who were successful in the draw held on 1.8.1995. Since the delay in issuing the allotment letter to the complainant had occurred due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties, as such they cannot charge higher price from the complainant. As per Clause 3 of the allotment letter dated 26.3.1997 the complainant was asked to send her acceptance along with an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- within 30 days to complete 25% of the price of the plot @ Rs. 1,800/- per sq. yard. According to Clause 4 of the said allotment letter in case of failure of the complainant to convey her refusal within 30 days, the allotment was to stand cancelled and the earnest money deposited would be forfeited. Although the complainant was entitled to allotment at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard and was not liable to pay the price at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1,800/- per sq. yard, yet in order to avoid cancellation of allotment, she deposited the amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- as per condition of allotment under compulsion and coercion. Again vide letter dated 11.4.1997, the opposite party informed the complainant that according to the decision of PUDA the price of the plot has been enhanced and that the price of the plot allotted to the complainant would be Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard. The complainant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- more within 30 days to complete 25% price of the plot, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the conditions of allotment. The condition No.-2 of the allotment letter issued to the complainant reads as under : "The tentative price of the plot is Rs. 9,00,000/- calculated @ Rs. 1,800/- per sq. yard. The above price is tentative and subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the site as well as in case of enhancement of compensation by the Courts or otherwise. You will be liable to pay the additional price of the plot, if any, determined by the Authority within 30 days of the date of demand in lump-sum. In case of default you shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum in addition to any other action which the Authority may take."

The complainant has alleged that the decision of the PUDA, if any, is applicable for future allotments and there is no decision to apply the enhanced rates retrospectively to the applicants who were successful in the draw held on 1.8.1995 and opposite party No. 2 has wrongly demanded the price at the enhanced rate @ Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard. Since the complainant was successful in the draw held on 1.8.1995 and the price prevalent at that time was Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard, therefore, she is to be charged @ Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard. Since the delay in issuing the allotment letter has occurred due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties, it is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed for the following relief : (i) A direction to opposite parties to charge the price @ Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard and to refund of the excess amount paid by the complainant as enhanced price with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. (ii) Damages according to Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant. (iii) Cost of litigation and any other relief which is deemed fit.

THE opposite parties put in appearance through Counsel and filed the reply taking legal objection that the price of the plot is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. On merits, the opposite parties contended that the complainant did not fulfill the required formalities. In fact with the original application the affidavit was not filed duly signed by the complainant. At the time when she exercised her option, she has put thumb impression as well as submitted on affidavit. This matter was being inquired by the office, to complete the formalities and for verifying her signatures. THEre was no delay on the part of the opposite parties. With regard to the price, it is stated that price being charged from the complainant is as per the policy decision. THE opposite parties have asserted that the price of Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard is legal, valid and in consonance with the decision of the Finance and Account Committee held on 20.3.1997. THE opposite parties have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. We have gone through the records and heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties, both on facts and on legal propositions. There is no dispute with regard to the allotment of plot No. 3012, Sector 69, Mohali in favour of Harbans Kaur and amount deposited by her as price of the plot. The main issue to be decided in this case is whether PUDA can legally charge enhanced price from the complainant 7

THE case of the complainant is that she was entitled to the allotment of plot as on 1.8.1995 when the draw of lots was held and at that time the price charged from the allottees was Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard, whereas as per stand of the PUDA, the rate prevalent at the time of issuance of the allotment letter is to be charged. THE Estate Officer-Sh. G.S. Ghuman has stated "that before the issuance of the allotment letter, the meeting of Finance and Accounts Committee of the Answering Authority has taken place in which item No. 13.13 was considered and the price was revised to Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard. As the Answering Party was not aware of the said decision and that is why under bona fide mistake, the said allotment letter was issued". The Counsel for the PUDA argued that the pricing of the plot is not within the ambit and jurisdiction of this Commission, and on this ground only the present complaint should be dismissed. Reference has been made to the decision of the National Commission in National Consumer Awareness Group (Regd.) v. The Housing Commissioner, Punjab Housing Development Board, III (1997) CPJ 88 (NC). In para 8 of the judgment it was held that the dispute relating to the pricing need not detain them. The Commission in various judgments have made a reference to the definition of the complaint and deficiency occurring in Sections 2(c)(iv) and 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act to bring out that the price referred to therein was the price fixed by or under any law and not the price fixed otherwise. The price is determined by the Board in accordance with the procedure evolved by it and there is no statutory control over the fixation of the price and the same cannot, therefore, be interfered with. The pricing of plots build by the Public Authority or plots developed by the Public Authorities is not a consumer dispute. After carefully considering the respective arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that the ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand. When draw of lots was held on August 1, 1995 to all the eligible candidates whatever rate of land was fixed was to be applied. To all the persons who were successful in the draw, allotment letters were issued to them for allotment of land at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard. The present is not a case of any policy decision taken by the State Government to enhance the price of land allotted, on account of escalation in the price of the land, which was acquired or on consideration the development charges. It would be unfair trade practice, if persons similarly situated are differentiated in the manner of charging price of the plots allotted. The National Commission so held in number of cases, one of these being The Commissioner, Assam State Housing Board v. Manoj Kumar Adhikary and Others, II (1996) CPJ 47 (NC)=1996 (2) CON.LT 644. No importance at this stage can be attached to the contention of Counsel for the PUDA that the complainant had accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment contained in letter dated 26.3.1997 (Annexure A-3), subsequently modified vide letter dated 11.4.1997, wherein the rate of land allotted was stated to be Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard. In our opinion, the complainant had no option but to do so in order to sustain her right of allotment. If she had not accepted the same, the PUDA would have cancelled the allotment. Such consensus obtained under compulsion cannot be considered as voluntary acceptance of the terms and conditions of the allotment. In the instant case, what the complainant has alleged in para 8 of the complaint is that in order to avoid cancellation of allotment, she deposited the amount under compulsion and coercion.

THE right of the complainant already existed when draw was held. It was verification of the documents, which could not be done subsequently. Any delay caused by PUDA in doing so will not impair the vested right of the complainant.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant argued that as the complainant is not keeping good health and her eyesight is not good, she has put her thumb impression instead of signing the documents. It is not disputed that the complainant had put her appearance in the office for verification about her thumbimpression, and it is not the case of the PUDA that on that account the allotment could be cancelled. THE moment verification of the antecedents of the original applicant were verified, which was only recognition of the existing right, by delaying in sending of the allotment letter, PUDA could not arbitrarily fix enhanced price of the plot @ Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard, which is not on account of escalation of the price of the land or development charges. Since the plot was allotted in the draw of lots, the price prevalent on the date of draw as was being charged from others is to be charged from the complainant. THEre was deficiency in rendering service in the matter of allotment of the plot and charging of the price. Reference be made to the decision of this Commission in O.C. No. 66 of 1997 wherein it was Held : "When draw of lots was held on August 1, 1995 to all the eligible candidates whatever rate of land was fixed was to be applied to all the persons, who were successful in the draw." .. .. "It would be unfair trade practice, if persons similarly situated are differentiated in the manner of charging price of the plot allotted." THE National Commission so held in number of cases, one of them being "THE Commissioner, Assam State Housing Board v. Manoj Kumar Adhikary and Others" (supra). For the reasons recorded, this complaint is allowed. A direction is given to the opposite parties to charge price of the plot @ Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard and refund the excess amount charged from the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of receipt of such excess amount till the date of payment and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards harassment and inconveniences caused along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation. THE directions aforesaid may be complied within one month from receipt of copy of the order by PUDA. Complaint allowed.