NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP (REGD.) vs HOUSING COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD

THIS Original Petition by National Consumer Awareness Group (Regd.) has been filed against the Housing Commissioner, Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh.

IT is apposite to notice the background leading to the filing of the complaint. Since the year 1972 the Government of Punjab had been floating different sectors in the Urban Area of the State of Punjab. For the purpose of allotment of plots of land applications used to be invited by the Housing Urban Development Department, Punjab from general public and to invite the same advertisements used to be given in the leading newspapers. The price at which the plots of various sizes were to be allotted were fixed from time to time in respect of every individual allotment scheme. In the year 1986-87 the Government of Punjab decided to earmark Sector 71, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali for allotment of plots exclusively for Defence personnel. The applications of Defence personnel which were then pending were to be considered for allotment of plots in Sector 71, Mohali. In the year 1988, the Government of Punjab transferred the aforementioned Sector 71, Mohali, to the Punjab Housing Development Board (hereinafter referred to as Board), for the development of the area and allotment of plots to the Defence personnel who were already registered with the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Board carved out 1496 plots of different sizes in Sector 71, Mohali. The Board fixed the tentative price of Rs. 300/- per sq. yard for the plots upto and including 200 sq. yards, and Rs. 400/- per square yard for the plots exceeding 200 sq. yards. The tentative prices were fixed in respect of the plots to be allotted to the 1412 Defence personnel applicants who were requested to convey their consents for the allotment of plots in question at the aforesaid tentative prices. A photo copy of the letter/Memo No. PHB-A-13-88 dated 7.12.1988 on the subject of allotment of residential plots to Defence personnel, the tentative price fixed and other terms and conditions, has been placed on record. Every one of the Defence personnel applying for allotment of the plot gave his consent to the tentative price and other terms and conditions subject to which the allotment was offered to be made by the Board. After receiving their consents the tentative decision of the Board to allot a plot of the appropriate size was communicated to each of the said Defence personnel. A photo copy of the allotment letter dated 13.5.89 is also on record. The exact plot number to be allotted to the individual allottee was decided through a draw of lots held at Lajpat Rai Bhawan, Sector-15, Chandigarh on 31st May, 1989. The allottees were required to pay the initial deposit of 25% of the tentative price as per the letter of allotment at the time of acceptance of the allotment of the individual plot and the balance of the amount was to be paid by instalments according to the terms and conditions of the allotment. A photo copy of one of the allotment letters dated 28.7.89 (to Lt. Col. J.S. Dhillon) is on the record alongwith the terms and conditions of allotment. The complainants alleged that all the consumers shown in Annexure C-l have been allotted plots in Defence Sector-71, S. A.S. Nagar, Mohali by the Board. The complainants however, have raised various disputes about the price of the plot. According to the complainants, the cost of plots was finally fixed at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yard but the Board enhanced the price of plot from Rsi 85/- per sq. yard while allotting the residential plot in August/September, 1989 namely, upto''200 sq. yards Rs. 300 per sq. yard and above 200 sq. yards Rs. 400/-per sq. yard. The complainants alleged that all the allottees listed in Annexure C-l have paid consideration for the services of Board for development of plots, construction of roads, laying of electric cable/poles, sewerage and water etc. so that housing construction on residential plots could be taken up but the Board has not completed services of development within the period of 20 years since 1971/72 and on the other hand the Board has enhanced cost of plot from Rs. 27/- per sq. yard to Rs. 85/- per sq. yard and then to Rs. 300/- Rs. 400/- per square yard as mentioned above. The complainants further alleged that in view of exorbitant rise in cost of plots in August/September, 1989, the allottees listed in Annexure C-l moved the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh by submitting complaint No. 16 on 19.1.90 and several other complaints by different complainants. The State Commission by a common order dated 20th February, 1992 directed the Board not to charge from the defaulting complainants in instalment over and above the rate at which the State was allotting the plots way back in 1983. The Board filed F.A. No. 111/92 before this Commission as also other appeals and this Commission stayed the operation of the said order dated 20th February, 1992.

IT is evident from the perusal of the complaint in this case, the list of allottees given in Annexure-C-1 and the record of F.A. No. 111 /92 that the present complaint has been filed on behalf of most of the allottees who had been arrayed as respondents in the First Appeal 111/ 92 with an addition of some other persons under a new name i.e. National Consumer Awareness Group under the Chairmanship of the same person namely Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta who had earlier styled himself as President of the aforementioned All India Defence Personnel Association, respondent in the said First Appeal No. 111/ 92.

THE parties have filed from time to time a number of pleadings and documents in support of their respective versions. The main contention of the complainants was that the draw of plots which was held on31stMay, 1989, could only be after all the essential development was completed by the Board including construction of roads, laying of sewerage pipe, laying of water pipeline, laying of electric poles and cable laying, plantation of saplings of trees all along the roads, filling of land in depression chappar, Khitan brick-kiln, removal of eucalyptus trees and filling of area of eucalyptus tree, which was in depression upto 8'' storm drainage, removal of cremation ground etc. When the matter came up for hearing before this Commission on 23rd February, 1995, after hearing Counsel on both sides in part, this Commission adjourned the matter for the limited purpose of enabling the Counsel on both sides to suggest the name of an agreed technical expert to visit the area in question and to make a report as to whether there are any defects in plots in question as alleged in the latest pleadings of the complainants and if so, what steps should be taken for rectification of them. On 8th of March, 1995 by consent of both sides Shri S.P. Sharma, Engineer-in-Chief (Retired), State of Himachal Pradesh, Kothi No. 331, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana) was appointed as a technical expert to visit the area in question where the plots allotted by the Punjab Housing and Development Board to the 130 persons represented by the complainants Association-National Consumer Awareness Group (Registered) are situated. Shri S.P. Sharma was requested to make his inspection in the light of the allegations contained in the complaint petition filed before this Commission regarding alleged defects in the plots and to make a report to this Commission as to whether any such defects do exist on the plots and i f so what steps have to be taken for remedying those defects and at what cost. A direction was given by this Commission that a detailed report regarding the aforesaid matter should be prepared and submitted to this Commission by Shri Sharma within a period of two months (from the order dated 83.95). This Commission also directed that the allottees represented by the complainant-Assodation shall, in case they are in arrears of instalments payable to the Housing Board, pay up all the arrears of instalments due up-to-date to the Board within a period not exceeding three weeks from the date of the order. It was made clear that in the event of their failure to do so, this Commission would not consider this petition any further. The amounts to be paid under the aforesaid direction would comprise only the principal amount of the instalments payable and their liability for payment of interest etc. would remain unaffected by the aforementioned directions but the principal amounts alone were directed to be deposited in compliance with the conditions in the order dated 8.3.1995. This Commission by order dated 6.4.95 on the request of the complainants extended the time for payment of the outstanding instalments. It was directed that the time for payment of the balance amount outstanding due as unpaid principal sums of the instalments in arrears fixed as per our order dated 8th March, 1995 was extended till 10th April, 1995 and inspection which was then scheduled to take place on 11th April, 1995 would be conducted only after the instalments were duly paid on or before 10th April, 1995. When the matter came up for hearing before this Commission on 25th July, 1995, the learned Counsel for the Board pointed out that notwithstanding the orders dated 8.3.95 and 6.4.95, a number of allottees represented by the complainant Association continued to be in default. This Commission directed the Counsel appearing for the opposite party to file an affidavit within a period of six weeks from 25th July, 1995 categorically stating whether the default has been committed by any of the members of the National Consumer Awareness Group (complainant herein), in the matter of complying with our direction regarding the deposit of the balance amount payable by them to the Punjab Housing and Development Board under our orders dated 8th March, 1995 and 6th April, 1995. An affidavit of Shri Harmail Singh, Legal Assistant in the office of the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority was filed containing a list of 28 defaulters giving the plot number, instalment due, interest due and the total amount amounting to Rs. 10,58,264/-. The complainants, however, disputed in their affidavit the list of 28 allottees out of 134 allottees who have not paid their principal amount. It was deposed that all the allottees have paid the principal amount of the instalments payable because their liability for payment of interest etc. had remained unaffected.

WHEN the matter came up of hearing before this Commission on 10th January, 1996, Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar, Advocate appearing oh behalf of the Board submitted before us that in the light of the report submitted by the Expert Commissioner, the Board undertakes to carry out all the works necessary to rectify the defects or deficiencies noticed by the Expert in its report except in respect of the matters which were not yet transferred to the Board or in respect of the matters which were covered by any orders of stay passed by the Supreme Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The undertaking given by Ms. Joshi was that all the aforesaid works would be completed by 31st March, 1996 and that was recorded. An affidavit dated 1st April, 1996 was filed by Mr. S.S. Badwal pointing out some deficiency still in existence. When the matter came up for hearing on 8.4.96, Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party requested for an adjournment of the case on the ground that she is awaiting instructions from the Board in regard to the affidavit filed by the complainant pointing out some deficiencies and this Commission acceded to the said request and adjourned the matter to 8th May, 1996. On 8th May, 1996 it was pointed out that the sewerage works was in progress and this Commission recorded the offer of the Counsel for the opposite party to get the sewerage work done by the Board before monsoon season. When the matter came up before this Commission on 23rd October, 1996 it was pointed out by the Counsel for the complainant that there is water logging due to rains in the plots situated in Pocket-C This Commission directed the Counsel for the opposite party to find out whether there is water logging in the plots and if so, to take steps to pump out the water and also to demarcate the plots.

THE case was finally heard on 10.4.1997 when after hearing Counsel for the parties we reserved the order. We have gone through the written submission and additional documents filed by the Counsel for the complainants. At the outset we may notice the submission of Mr. K.MS. Bedi, Advocate for the complainants that the delay and deficiency in the development and providing of amenities in Sector 71, S. A.S., Nagar Mohali is not due to paucity of funds as a result of non-payment of the due instalments by some members of the complainants'' Association or other allottees but the callousness of the officials of tine opposite party. He relied upon the proceedings of the meeting held on 25.2.1987 under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Minister laying down that the work of the development of Sector 71, had been accepted by the Board who would raise institutional finance for the purpose of development for the estimated total cost of the project of Rs. 10.75 crores. The contention is that Rs. 10.75 crores/10.90 crores have been misused in 1989 in a corrupted way without carrying out any development as envisaged in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25.2.1987. These submissions are stated to be rejected. No cogent or convincing evidence or material had been placed on record during trial of the petition on that aspect and the opposite party had no opportunity to meet the factual case set up in the synopsis filed on 10.4.97 after the judgment was reserved. Apart from it, the policy decision of the State of Punjab and its non-fulfilment cannot be a subject matter of consumer dispute. The complainants have also raised various disputes about the pricing of the plots. The stand is that initially the price of the plots was fixed in the year 1971 /72 at the rate of Rs. 27/-per sq. yard and it was enhanced to Rs. 85 per sq. yard and finally fixed while allotting the residential plots in August/September, 1989 namely upto 200 sq. yards Rs. 300/- per sq. yard and above 200 sq. yards Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. The dispute relating to pricing need not detain us. This 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 flats built by the public authority or plots developed by the authorities is not a consumer dispute.

THE only evidence on the record as to the alleged defects or deficiency is contained in the report of Shri S.P. Sharma, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.) who was appointed with the consent of both sides as technical expert to visit the area in question where the plots allotted by the Board to the 130 persons represented by the Complainants'' Association are situated. At the time of inspection a number of members of the Complainants'' Association and officials of the Board were present. The inspection of the area was carried out as per the decision arrived with the consent of both the parties and the agreed procedure was followed. The report is at pages 178 to 196 of the paper book. Some deficiencies were pointed out by the expert. The Board filed the affidavits of Shri Inderjit Kumar, Divisional Engineer (Public Health) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Shri Surjit Walia, Divisional Engineer (Electrical) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Shri Sohan Singh, Divisional Engineer (Civil), Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority. The affidavit of Shri Sohan Singh states that the technical expert appointed by this Commission had reported in respect of the conditions of six Pockets of Section 71, and the work was carried out except the area which is under dispute due to stay order of the Court and graveyard. Shri Inderjit Kumar stated that owing to lack of optimum use some of the sewerage lines and storm water drains in Sector 71 had got chocked and that the pipe line for storm water drainage had already been laid and the work of construction of main holes and road gullies and their connections is in progress in Pockets C and F and is expected to be completed within two months and that the missing links in the sewer line in Pocket F have been completed and provided and are being properly maintained. The affidavit of Shri Surjit Singh Walia stated that the Board has decided to provide the requisite number of transformers and electric lines as per the design approved by PSEB and hand over them to PSEB for being released in the proper manner that the proposal and design which were submitted for the approval of the Board have been approved by PSEB and accordingly the estimates had been prepared and the tenders for executing the work would be invited shortly and that the work would be taken up in a phased manner and after provision of proper electric lines all the connections given through bamboo poles etc. shall be removed. A further affidavit dated 26.8.96 was filed by Shri Inderjit Kumar stating that the sewer work of Pockets ''C and ''F'' as mentioned by the Technical Expert appointed by this Commission had been completed at the site and that the blockage of sewer as pointed out by the Technical Expert had also been cleared. It was further stated that the construction of storm water and sewer had also been completed at sites other than those for which the stay orders directing maintenance of status quo had been passed by various Courts and that extra road gullies have also been provided wherever found necessary. Affidavit of Shri J.J. Kumar, Divisional Engineer (Civil-TT) dated 10th of December,1996 and affidavit of Shri Inderjit Kumar posted as Divisional Engineer (Public Health) dated 25th January, 1997 were filed. In the affidavit of Shri J.J. Kumar the development status in Pocket-C of Sector 71 was filed. It was stated that all plots in Pocket-C had been duly demarcated with the help of number of plots and have been provided with approach roads and that the further upgradation of the roads was undertaken after the rains and more than 70% of the work of laying down of T and TT coat of Bitumen had already been completed and this was in addition to the stone metal layer which had already been laid on all the roads of the Pocket. Shri Inderjit Kumar stated that the water accumulated in certain low lying area in Pocket ''C of Sector 71, had been pumped out and the plots on the site stood demarcated. These affidavits have been sworn by officials who are concerned with the development of the area undertaken in pursuance of the report of the Technical Expert pointing out certain deficiencies. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements made by these officials. Whatever defects were in existence and have been pointed out by the Technical Expert appointed by this Commission have been attended to and rectified. One of the reliefs which can be granted by the Consumer FORA is to direct the opposite party to remove the defects of deficiency in services in question. That is what has exactly been achieved during the pendency of the complaint.

WE may recall the orders dated 8th March, 1995 and 10th April, 1995 while directing inspection by a Technical Expert that the defaulting members of the Complainants'' Association must clear the unpaid principal sums of the instalments. An affidavit of Shri Harmail Singh, Legal Assistant in the Office of the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority was filed containing a list of 28 defaulters giving the plot number, instalment due, interest due and the total amount amounting to Rs. 10,58,264/-. The complainants have also questioned the pricing that the cost of the plot could not be more than at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yard. As the complainants have not complied with the orders of this Commission in the matter of payment and are in arrears of the amount due in accordance with the letter of allotment and terms and conditions of allotment, we are not inclined to give any further directions even if some defects are in existence. It will be open to the complainants to clear all dues together with interest/penalties and if there is still some defects or deficiencies in service, they can approach the appropriate FORA once again. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.