Naseem Begum vs LAXMI NARAIN ARORA

-THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to remove the deficiencies by providing basic amenities like street lights, water supply toilets, road, 16ft. wide pavements for the site as show in the PUDA''s site plan, sewerage connection and parking within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order with interest @ 18% p. a. over the amount of deposit from the respective dates of deposits till the possession of the plot was offered along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and also cost of Rs. 3,000.

THE facts in brief are as under: the respondent-Mrs. Mandeep Kang in response to an advertisement in an auction for sale of free hold commercial sites situated at Crystal Plaza, Chotti Baradari, Jalandhar, Punjab on 29. 8. 2001 at PUDA Complex was allotted a SCO for a sum of Rs. 21,12,048. She deposited the total sale price in time on the following dates: (i) 10% of auction money was deposited on 29. 8. 2001 at the time of auction : Rs. 2,11,205. 00 (ii) 15% of auction money deposited within 30 days after allotment i. e. 26. 9. 2001 : Rs. 3,16,810. 00 (iii) Lump sum payment was deposited on 29. 10. 2001 within 60 days from the auction : Rs. 15,04,835. 00

It was claimed that the complainant was verbally assured that the possession of plot in question could be taken within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. The complainant while sending the draft of Rs. 15,04,835 vide Annexures C-4 and C-5, stated that this full payment was made on condition that her interest would not suffer for any delay/inconvenience caused by PUDA in which case she would reserve her right to due compensation. This was mentioned because terms and conditions were said to be one sided, and till that date neither roads were constructed nor parking pavement was ready nor zonal plan was ready. The basic amenities were not provided and thus the area was not developed. Subsequently, vide letter dated 5. 2. 2002, she asked appellant to disclose as to when the facilities would be provided like, water supply, sewerage, toilets, roads, parking and 16'' wide pavements for Crystal Plaza (Site ). The auction of shop cum office was held on 29. 8. 2001. Since the facilities were not provided, the allottee/complainant/respondent could not enjoy the plot by taking possession. She filed complaint, accordingly.

The matter was contested by the appellant before the State Commission on the ground that no assurance was given at the time of auction of the plot that Crystal Plaza, Chotti Baradari, Jalandhar, Punjab would be developed and that the development was nearing completion. The auction was by way of advertisement. All participants had participated in auction on their own accord. No due certificate had been issued on 13. 3. 2002. It was one of the conditions that "the allottee shall be allowed to undertake construction after the site is given subject to sanction of the building plans". No building plan was ever submitted. It was denied that the opposite parties had assured and promised to purchasers of plots that the possession of the plots in question may be taken within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. As regards, water supply, the same was functional with the help of a generator. In addition, the electricity poles, along with high-tension wires and sewerage pipe had been laid as per plan. It was wrong to assume by the complainant that in this manner, the opposite parties were not in position to deliver the possession. The complainant had mis-represented about the facts of the case. There was no such assurance about the development.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no dispute about the fact that an advertisement was made by PUDA as per Annexure C-1. This Annexure C-1 did not refer to any condition indicating that it would be a developed plot. It is stated in Annexure C-1 "detailed terms and conditions can be had from the office of Additional Chief Administrator (Projects), PUDA, Chandigarh Tel. 0172-703605 or Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Jalandhar, Tel. 0181-235867". Nothing has been shown to establish that allotment letter or the aforesaid terms and conditions as stated had not been complied with, have been filed by the complainant to indicate that there was any agreement to deliver possession after developing the plot. However, one could not be oblivious to the fact that the PUDA had auctioned plots at Crystal Plaza, Choti Baradari, Jalandhar where commercial sites should be connected with approachable roads, water and electricity, etc. There could not be any doubt that though it is not so mentioned it should be implied for a site plan of the shop cum-office complex would surely indicate that it would be located in a developed park. One could not be oblivious to the fact that when a sum of Rs. 15,04,835 were paid in October, 2001, subject to specific conditions and the amount has been accepted and had not been returned. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept that plea of PUDA.

IT may be mentioned here about development and facilities which were being provided by PUDA, PUDA itself has mentioned in its written version in para 9 indicating that the possession of the plots in question might be taken within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter, but to a great surprise of the allottee, the area remained undeveloped and no facility of roads, water supply, electricity supply, toilet sewerage, etc. were provided. Development in the area was also one of the implied conditions in the matter otherwise there was no need for them to justify it by giving explanation about water supply, and laying of roads, sewerage, and electricity poles, etc. There could not be any dispute about the fact that the possession could not be given before submitting the building plan, which had not been filed before 2007. It has been filed only on 23. 1. 2007. It would indicate only one thing that the complainant was not willing to construct earlier and in order to justify delay in construction, she had relied upon the shortcomings of PUDA also. Seeing the circumstances of the matter, we feel it appropriate to partly accept the appeal and reduce the rate of interest from 18% p. a. to 12% p. a. on the amount deposited from 1. 9. 2002 till 31. 12. 2006. We feel that the complainant in the aforesaid circumstances cannot claim harassment and mental agony and when the interest is being given, the complainant would not be entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 25,000. However, we confirm cost of litigation, which has been awarded by the State Commission to the extent of Rs. 3,000. The impugned order is modified accordingly and appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. Appeal partly allowed.