JOGINDER SINGH KALIA vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

THE complainants purchased S.C.O. site No. 67, Sector 32C & D, Chandigarh at an auction held by the O.Ps. in response to an advertisement given in several newspapers on 7.12.2000. THE advertisement said that the plots were fully developed and were governed by the Capital and Punjab [Development and Regulation] Act, 1952 and also governed by the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites Rules. THE sale price of the S.C.O. site aforesaid was Rs. 42.50 lakhs. THE complainants deposited a sum equivalent to 10% of the auction money on the date of auction itself i.e. 7.12.2000 and deposited the remaining 15% of the cost of plot subsequently. THE total payment made towards the cost of the SCO site by the complainants was to the extent of 25% of the total cost of the plot. THE complainants received a regular allotment letter bearing No. 2702/CPL 5892/CIA-1 dated 2.2.2001, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure C-2. THE complainants were handed over the possession of the SCO site only on 21.5.2001 and delay of more than three months resulted from the date of allotment. A copy of the possession letter was placed on record as Annexure C-3. It is alleged that after taking possession of the property, the complainants noticed that there was no parking places or approach road to the SCO site purchased from them which raised problems in the construction work. THEre was also no drainage system for taking the rain water. It was apprehended that, if any construction was raised by the entire water near the site shall come into the basement. It has also been contended that a lot of digging work had been done by the Municipal Corporation and thereby cutting the approach to the site fairly a long distance. Not only this, amenities like street lights, etc. were also not provided. THE complainants relied on certain photographs taken in the month of July, 2001 and attached the same as Annexure C-4 along with their respective negatives. THE complainants have further alleged that since the amenities like street light and parking were not provided, the O.Ps. were liable to reschedule the payment of instalments and interest, ground rent, leave money and penalties and they should not start realizing the money from the complainants till the actual restoration of the facilities/amenities.

THE complainants met the O.Ps. for Redressal of their grievances and submitted a detail representation on 8.1.2002 (vide copy Annexure C-5). THE O.Ps., however, pressed the complainants to deposit the remaining amount and in the absence thereof, there was threat to cancel the allotment and for resumption of the SCO site. In these compelling circumstances, the complainants kept on depositing the amounts with the O.Ps. under protest and also without prejudice to their rights. According to the tabular chart mentioned in para 5 of the complaint, the complainants had up to 6.3.2002 deposited a total sum of Rs. 24,50,501/- only. THE complainants alleged that the O.Ps. were deficient in rendering service to them and they were liable to remove the deficiency and reschedule the payment of instalment, lease money, yearly rent, penalty, etc. and further pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for harassment and mental tension and agony. A sum of Rs. 11,000/- was claimed as costs of litigation. The complainant No. 1, Shri Joginder Singh Kalia S/o Shri Lakha Singh filed his affidavit by way of evidence to prove the averments made in the complaint case and also filed photocopy of General Power of Attorney executed by the complainants in favour of the Shri Harbakhsh Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh R/o House No. 1652, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh as general lawful attorney pertaining to SCO No. 67, Sector 32 C&D, Chandigarh aforesaid. This Power of Attorney was executed by the complainant No. 2 in respect of his 1 share in the SCO. The complainants filed copy of allotment letter and other documents referred to above. A copy of letter dated 5.4.2002 issued by the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh addressed to the Superintending Engineer-cum-Nodal Officer, U.T., Chandigarh and the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (Copy Annexure C-6) was placed on record vide which the Estate Officer requested the aforesaid authorities to provide basic amenities at Plot No. 67, Sector 32 C&D, Chandigarh. They have placed reliance on the earlier complaint case decided by this Commission and have filed copy of order of the State Commission passed in Complaint Case No. 9 of 1998, Kanwarjit Singh Jolly v. Chandigarh Administration and 2 Ors. A copy of order passed in Complaint Case No. 60 of 2001, Shri Gurdial Singh & 7 Ors. v. U.T., Chandigarh & 3 Ors. Decided by this Commission on 7.10.2002 was also placed on record (Copy Annexure C-10). A copy of representation dated 8.11.2002 was filed as Annexure C-11 which had been sent by the complainants. In evidence they also filed affidavit of Shri Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Badri Parshad R/o House No. 4050/1, Customs Colony, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh who is a photographer and who took the photographs, positives of which have been placed on record as Annexures C-4, C-8 and C-9 and also filed their negatives.

The O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement wherein the averments made in the complaint case were denied and it was mentioned in Para 1 of the preliminary objections that the following amenities were available at the SCO Site No. 67 aforesaid : (i) Water supply line. (ii) Sewer line. (iii) Storm Water disposal. (iv) Electricity/power system.

THEY have placed on record the general terms and conditions of the sale of commercial site buildings by auction vide copy Annexure R-1. THEY relied on the affidavit filed by Shri Ashwani Kumar, H.C.S., Assistant Estate Officer exercising the powers of Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh wherein the introductory facts regarding the auction of SCO Site No. 67 in favour of the complainants at an auction held on 7.10.2002 was not disputed. It was deposed, inter alia, that the general terms and conditions were made known to the bidders/complainants at the time of auction. The possession was offered to the complainants on 2.2.2001 but they took over the possession on 21.5.2001. Regarding the providing of amenities, it was deposed in the affidavit of Shri Ashwani Kumar, Asstt. Estate Officer, in Para 4 as under : "4. That water supply lines, sewerage lines and strom water disposal lines were laid in 1981, 1991 and 1992 respectively. Parking lights were provided on 18.7.2002 and road parking was provided on 31.7.2002. All basic amenities have already been provided at the site. A sum of Rs. 4,59,141/- is still due against the complainants on account of balance of instalment, ground rent and interest. Though the basic amenities have been provided at the site, yet the complainants have not started construction at the site."

It was contended that the judgment rendered by this State Commission in the case of Shri Gurdial Singh (supra), has been challenged in appeal before the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission) and the same is pending there on 14.10.2003. It was deposed further that the complainants were liable to make the payment of instalments of premium and ground rent as per the general terms and conditions of allotment failing which they were liable to pay penalty and interest on late payments under Rules 12(3) and 13(iii) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 which have not been challenged by the complainants. This is the entire evidence led in this case.

IT may be mentioned that the name of O.P. No. 2 was deleted from the array of O.Ps. vide zimini order dated 14.1.2003 and consequently O.P. No. 3 was ordered to be renumbered as O.P. No. 2. The learned Counsel for the complainants placed reliance on the order passed by this State Commission in the case of Shri Gurdial Singh (supra), which related to Plot No. 66 located in the same Sector 32 C&D, Chandigarh where the SCO site No. 67 involved in the present case is situated. Mr. K.S. Bawa, Advocate appearing for the complainants contended that similar pleas were raised in the case of Shri Gurdial Singh (supra), on behalf of the O.Ps. and Shri Ashwani Kumar, Asstt. Estate Officer had filed his affidavit in that case also. This Commission after going through the various contentions raised on either side, held, inter alia, as under : "Keeping in view the decision to the observations of the Hon''ble National Commission, as quoted above, in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar (supra), we find that the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 have taken a rigid stand by taking shelter behind the Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder, terms of the letter of allotment and general terms and conditions to deny their liability of making provisions for any of the amenities and facilities regarding the development of these sites where the allotted plot is situated and such a stand cannot be held to be reasonable and justified particularly in view of the fact that the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are the provider of the service to the consumer/allottee."

The complaint filed by Shri Gurdial Singh was eventually allowed to the extent that the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of the said complaint case namely U.T., Chandigarh; Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administrator and Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration were directed to provide basic amenities/facilities as mentioned in complaint within a period of six months from the communication of the order and till the amenities were so provided, the payment of instalments, lease money/yearly rent, penalty and interest shall be reschedule. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was allowed as compensation for harassment and mental tension and the costs of litigation was awarded at a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.Ps. 1 to 3.

AFTER carefully going through the pleadings of this case, we find that the controversy involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the controversy involved regarding the provision of basic amenities by the O.Ps. in the case of Shri Guardial Singh (supra), and the dispute raised in the complaint case is covered by the order rendered in the case of Shri Gurdial Singh (supra). The complainants have placed on record sufficient material in the shape of affidavit and documents including the photographs to show the lack of basic amenities at the site in question till July, 2001 when the photographs were taken. In the complaint case of Shri Kanwarjit Singh Jolly v. Chandigarh Administration, (Copy Annexure C-7) decided by this Commission on 10.3.1999, the complaint had been allowed and it was directed that all the basic amenities be provided to the complainants at the site in question and till then the instalments be rescheduled. The case of Shri Gurdial Singh (supra), is more akin and relevant to the controversy involved in the instant case as the sector in both the complaint cases is the same i.e. Sector 32 C&D, Chandigarh. The learned Government Pleader Mr. K.C. Sahu appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 referred to the affidavit of Shri Ashwani Kumar, Asstt. Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration and particularly to Para 6, wherein the filing of appeal against the order of this Commission before the Hon''ble National Commission has been made and it has been deposed that the said appeal is fixed for hearing on 14.10.2003. We, however, find that the operation of the impugned judgment delivered in the case of Shri Gurdial Singh (supra), has not been stayed by the Hon''ble National Commission and at least there is no such material placed before us in this complaint case.

RESULTANTLY, we find that the complainants have been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in providing basic amenities to the complainants at the site in question i.e. SCO No. 67, Sector 32 C&D, Chandigarh and the complaint is allowed to the extent that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to provide basic amenities/facilities, as mentioned in the complaint, within a period of six months from the communication of this order and till the amenities are so provided, the payment of instalments, lease money/yearly rent, penalty and interest shall be rescheduled. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- is allowed as compensation for harassment and mental tension. The costs of the complaint are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be paid to the complainants by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 only. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charge. Complaint allowed.