INDERJIT BANSAL vs PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PUDA

-BOTH the appeals have arisen out of same order dated 21. 12. 2004 and as such are disposed of by common judgment.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Sh. Inderjit Bansal, complainant purchased a residential plot No. 4 for Rs. 15,20,000 in the scheme advertised by Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short PUDA) for residential and commercial plots at old police academy, Phillaur, by way of auction vide allotment letter dated 15. 6. 2001 Ex. C. 4. He being the highest bidder deposited Rs. 1,50,000 i. e. 10% of the sale price on 7. 2. 2001 at the spot and deposited Rs. 2,25,000 being 15% of the total amount on 5. 3. 2001. The balance price i. e. 10,83,000 was deposited by Sh. Inderjit Bansal vide receipt No. 56 dated 2. 8. 2001 Ex. C. 5 accepting it as full and final payment of the total price of the plot after giving rebate of 5%. It was next averred that however, PUDA failed to deliver physical possession of the said plot and further failed to provide amenities/facilities in the colony as promised through advertisement and as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

It was further averred that site plan was submitted for sanction which was returned as zoning plan of the scheme was not approved by 26. 1. 2003. Issuance of ''no Due Certificate'' was also refused on 8. 11. 2002, although full and final payment was made as early as on 2. 8. 2001. PUDA started asking for the payment of interest amount of Rs. 1,17,315 and consequently alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

PUDA contested the complaint and stated that in view of the terms and conditions, the matter was to be referred to the arbitrator and as such complaint was not maintainable. It further stated that the complaint was to be referred to the Chief Administrator which was not done and as such the complaint was not maintainable. It next stated that the complaint was also time-barred as the last payment was made on 2. 8. 2001 and the present complaint had been filed on 20. 11. 2003 after a lapse of more than two years. It next stated that the remaining payment was required to be paid to get rebate of 5% within 60 days of the date of auction and since, payment was not made within 60 days, so, complainant was not entitled to 5% rebate. It further stated that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. According to allotment letter, balance payment should have been deposited on or before 7. 4. 2001 and not on 2. 8. 2001 to claim rebate. It also stated that facilities like water supply and sewerage were to be provided by the Municipal Corporation and not by PUDA and it had already deposited Rs. 1,27,240 with Nagar Council, Phillaur for carrying out the works of sewerage and water connection. Therefore, if there was any delay, it was not to be blamed. It next stated that complainant was still liable to pay Rs. 78,314 on 25. 2. 2004, so, complaint should be dismissed. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 21. 12. 2004 accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 2000 and directed PUDA to refund Rs. 1,20,000 paid in excess and further to pay compensation @ Rs. 20,000 per year from the date of final payment i. e. 2. 8. 2001 till handing over of actual possession and providing of amenities. Aggrieved by the said order, both parties have filed above mentioned two appeals. We have heard Sh. Asa Singh, Advocate for Shri Inderjit Bansal, complainant, Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for PUDA, and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that residential plot No. 4, near Veterinary Hospital, Phillaur at old police Academy, Phillaur was purchased by Sh. Inderjit Bansal, complainant in open auction on 7. 2. 2001 for Rs. 15,20,000. He had deposited Rs. 1,52,000 being 10% of the sale price vide receipt No. 69 dated 7. 2. 2001 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,28,000 on 5. 3. 2001 so, as to make 25% vide demand draft dated 5. 3. 2001 issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Phillaur in favour of PUDA. Ex. C-1 is the pamphlet issued by PUDA for the auction which was to be held on 7. 2. 2001. According to it, possession was to be delivered to the successful purchasers on depositing of 25% of the amount and they would be authorized to make construction after getting site plan sanctioned. Ex. C-2 is receipt dated 7. 2. 2001 vide which Rs. 1,52,000 were deposited. Ex. C-3 is the receipt dated 5. 3. 2001 vide which an amount of Rs. 2,28,000 was deposited, so as to make 25%. Ex. C-4 is the allotment letter dated 15. 6. 2001 according to which an amount of Rs. 3,80,000 i. e. 25% was deposited earlier and the balance amount of Rs. 11,40,000 i. e. 75% was to be deposited within 60 days from the date of auction ,so, as to claim rebate of 5%. According to Clause 16 of the allotment letter, construction on the plot was to be made within three years from the date of issuance of allotment letter, after getting site plan of the building sanctioned.

EX. C-5 is receipt dated 2. 8. 2001 vide which Rs. 10,83,000 were deposited and this amount was accepted as full and final i. e. it was got deposited after giving rebate of 5%. It is true that according to allotment letter, balance amount after deducting 5% as rebate was to be deposited within 60 days from the date of auction. In that way the amount was deposited late but since it was accepted as full and final payment vide Ex. C-5, so, PUDA cannot go against the said receipt. It means that PUDA after waiving condition No. 5 accepted the payment as full and final payment. It is for this reason that allotment letter Ex. C-4 was issued late i. e. on 15. 6. 2001, so, allottee came to know condition of 5% rebate late and for this reason, PUDA accepted the amount by giving 5% rebate vide receipt on 2. 8. 2001, Therefore, we hold that the full amount had been paid. A perusal of the letter Ex. C-7 dated 1. 8. 2001 issued by complainant shows that he had written to Estate Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar that the development had not taken place as necessary amenities like water supply, electricity, storm water lines and park had not been provided. There is another letter Ex. C-8 to this effect. On the other hand vide letter dated 20. 11. 2002 Ex. C-11 PUDA had demanded Rs. 1,24964 as balance amount. Vide receipt Ex. C-14 dated 26. 8. 2003 complainant had deposited Rs. 1,20,000 regarding balance amount.

Puda has not led any evidence that it had provided electricity, roads, sewerage and water supply, etc. On the other hand, it had stated that the water supply and sewerage were to be provided by the Municipal Corporation. Primarily it was duty of Puda to make arrangement to provide amenities at the earliest. It is not mentioned in the written reply as to when the amount was deposited with Municipal Corporation to provide these facilities. It is stated in the written reply that the possession was delivered to the complainant on 1. 8. 2001 and otherwise also under the auction letter the complainant was bound to take possession within 30 days. Taking of possession within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or on 1. 8. 2001 was meaningless because no amenities were provided and further complainant could not make an application for getting site plan sanctioned because so far zoning plan had not been approved.

THERE is letter Ex. C-18 dated 21. 1. 2003 bearing memo No. 146 which shows that zoning plan had not been approved of the site of old police Academy, Phillaur. Since, zoning plan had not been approved by the Chief Town Planner and also by the Chief Administrator, PUDA, so, site plan could not be sanctioned. Thus, recovery of Rs. 85,500 as interest could not be held valid because no interest could be recovered as the site plans were not sanctioned as zoning plan was not got approved and further amenities had not been provided. Therefore, demand of PUDA for claiming interest vide letter dated 21. 1. 2003 was not justified. Since, amenities had not been provided and the zoning plan had not been approved, so, District Consumer Forum had rightly ordered refund of Rs. 1,20,000 which was deposited in excess. It had further awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000 per year from the date of final payment upto the period when actual possession was to be delivered and amenities were to be provided and zoning plan was sanctioned. No basis has been laid for awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000 per year. We think it will be appropriate if compensation by way of interest on the amount deposited by complainant is awarded till the amenities are provided and site plan is sanctioned after approval of zoning plan. We further think it appropriate if interest @ 18% p. a. is awarded. It will also take care of escalation in cost of construction as well as mental agony, etc. Thus, instead of compensation of Rs. 20,000 per year, we award interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of respective deposits till amenities are provided and site plan is sanctioned. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=iii (2004) SLT 161= (2004) 5 SCC 65, has awarded interest @ 15% to 18% p. a. by way of compensation for escalation in cost of construction, etc. The complaint is within time from date of demand vide letter Ex. C-11 dated 20. 11. 2002.

COUNSEL for PUDA also contended that the matter should have been referred to the arbitrator and further to the Chief Administrator as per terms and conditions. However, contention of the learned Counsel is not tenable because under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of the C. P. Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and in spite of provision of arbitration, complaint can be filed under the C. P. Act. Hence, both appeals with some modification indicated above, are dismissed. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeals dismissed.