KULDEEP SINGH vs CORPORATION LIMITED PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT

THE appellant Shri Kuldeep Singh had filed Complaint Case No. 1147 of 1998 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I], against Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited [for short hereinafter referred to as the P.S.I.E.C.]. THE appellant applied for an industrial plot measuring 250 sq. yards at Chanalon. Plot No. E-50-P measuring 250 sq. yards was allotted to the appellant vide allotment letter dated 28.4.1994. THE rate of Rs. 247.50 per sq. yard was charged and the value of the said plot was worked out at Rs. 61,875/-. THE appellant deposited the aforesaid amount and the final payment was made in June, 1997. THE opposite party - P.S.I.E.C. sent a demand letter dated 11.12.1997 raising a demand of Rs. 60,327/-, an amount outstanding as on 30.11.1997. This demand included the value of the excess area of the said plot. According to the case of the respondent, the area of the plot allotted to the complainant was 339.45 sq. yards as against 250 sq. yards mentioned in the allotment letter. THE complainant had thus 69.45 sq. yards excess area, the value of which was also demanded besides other demands raised in the said letter dated 11.12.1997. According to the contention of the appellant/complainant, the valuation of the excess area of 89.45 sq. yards should be worked out at the rate of Rs. 247.50 per sq. yards at which the original value of the allotted plot was worked out at Rs. 61,875/- for 250 sq. yards. THE value of the excess area of 89.45 sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 247.50 per sq. yard would come out to Rs. 22,138.88.

THE grievance of the complainant was that the opposite party did not specifically raise the demand of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,138.88 and also did not entertain the prayer of the complainant to allot an alternative plot measuring 250 sq. yards only. THE complainant sent a letter on 7.5.1998 to the opposite party - P.S.I.E.C. but it was not entertained. Consequently, the complaint case was filed. The opposite party - P.S.I.E.C. put in appearance before the District Forum-I and defended its action in raising a demand of Rs. 60,327/- which included penal interest, cost of extra land, etc. It was alleged that the complainant had taken physical possession of the plot after checking measurement of the plot at the site and putting his signatures on the certificate of possession, a copy of which was sent to the complainant on 29.9.1994 by the concerned S.D.E.-I. The opposite party admitted receipt of letter from the complainant which is dated 5.5.1998 and its reply was sent on 17.8.1998 calling upon the complainant to give his consent that he would accept the plot No. E-96, if changed on original terms and conditions of allotment but the complainant showed his unwillingness and accordingly the complainant was asked to deposit the outstanding dues immediately vide letter dated 30.10.1998 failing which the allotment was to be cancelled.

The complainant filed replication in which the averments made in the written statement in rebuttal of the pleas taken in the complaint were denied and the averments made in the complaint were reiterated.

THE complainant led evidence which comprised of photostat copies of the documents and his affidavit. THE opposite party also filed documents and the affidavit of Shri R.K. Goel, Sectional Officer (Legal), P.S.I.E.C., Chandigarh. The District Forum-I upheld the plea of the complainant regarding the amount of the excess area of the plot being Rs. 22,138.88 and directed the complainant to pay the said amount instead of the amount demanded by the opposite party i.e. Rs. 60,327/- and also to pay the interest @ 12% per annum from 11.12.1997 till its payment.

THE complainant was dis-satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum-I insofar as it related to the direction to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 22,138.88 @ 12% per annum from 11.12.1997. The respondent/opposite party put in appearance before this Commission in appeal through the Counsel Mr. Vanish Khanna, Advocate. The file of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vanish Khanna, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the order passed by the District Forum-I and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

THE sole dispute involved in this appeal is about the liability of the complainant to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 22,138.88, the value of the excess area of 89.45 sq. yards. THE respondent - P.S.I.E.C. has not challenged the order of the District Forum-I inasmuch as no appeal has been filed by the respondent. THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand of Rs. 60,327/- raised by the respondent vide letter dated 11.12.1997 did not clearly and subsequently indicate that the value of the excess area of 89.45 sq. yards was being charged from the complainant/appellant. He has contended that the appellant visited the office of the P.S.I.E.C. and sent letter referred to above. It is, however, not disputed that the appellant at no stage, made an offer to pay even the amount of Rs. 22,138.88, which was the value relied on by the appellant to the respondent being the cost of the excess area of the plot as aforesaid or even tendered the said amount for payment. Undisputedly the plot allotted to the appellant was of the area of 339.45 sq. yard but it was wrongly mentioned in the order as 250 sq. yards. THE appellant was thus required to pay the value of the excess area of the plot and even according to his case, the value was worked out at the rate of Rs. 247.50 per sq. yards but the said amount of Rs. 22,138.88 was never tendered by him to the opposite party even till today.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment clearly show that as and when demand of the costs of excess area is made in respect of the plot allotted, the same can be deposited within a period of 30 days. THE argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the District Forum-I committed an error in directing the complainant to pay interest w.e.f. the date of the letter raising the demand i.e. 11.12.1997. THE learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the terms and conditions of allowing 30 days from the date of the letter to pay the amount of excess area of the plot allotted. After hearing the rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 22,138.88 at least from the date after 30 days of the date of the letter raising the demand. As mentioned above, the date of letter raising the demand for payment of cost of excess area of the plot allotted is 11.12.1997. The period of 30 days would expire from 11.12.1997 on 10.1.1998. The liability to pay interest thus accrued w.e.f. 11.1.1998. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, in our considered view, it should be 10% instead of 12% as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA v. R.K. Goel, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3324 of 1997 [Arising out of the judgment dated 9.10.1996 passed in C.W.P. No. 9234/1996], decided on 24.10.1997. The appeal thus partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the order of the District Forum-I is modified and the complainant is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 22,138.88 as the cost of excess area of 89.45 sq. yards together with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 11.9.1998 till its payment. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.