PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs PIARA SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 15.12.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I] in Complaint Case No. 828 of 1995.

THE respondent/complainant applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 125 sq. yards in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana in April, 1990 and deposited earnest money of Rs. 2,000/-, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority [for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA], Ludhiana, published in different newspapers in March, 1990. THE application of the complainant was registered at Serial No. 3518 in the office of the Estate Officer. THE Bank Draft of Rs. 2,000/- submitted by the complainant was also encashed by the Estate Officer. THE applications were invited by the Estate Officer under the allotment policy of 1983 which was based on income criteria for different sizes of plots. In April, 1991, the Punjab Government transferred all the assets of Urban Estate to Punjab Housing Development Board which decided that for future allotments, income criteria as contained in 1983 policy should be discarded. THE Board considered it necessary to do so as the Board was going to charge an economic and realistic price for plots of all sizes. It has been averred in the complaint that two draw of lots took place by the Punjab Housing Development Board through the Estate Officer on 18.12.1992 and 16.6.1994 but in both the draw of lots, the name of the complainant was not included on the ground that his income was in excess of the income criteria laid down in the policy of 1983. THE complainant made a detailed representation dated 6.2.1995 to the opposite parties (copy Annexure P-2) for considering his case in the light of the decision of the Punjab Housing Development Board. THE opposite parties sent a reply to the complainant, a copy of which was placed on record as Annexure P-3, informing him that the said income criteria was not to be ignored. THE complainant served a legal notice on the opposite parties on 24.5.1995 (copy Annexure P-4) and filed the complaint alleging that the non-inclusion of his name in the draw by the Estate Officer is a grave deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant. THE complainant prayed for issuance of a direction to remove deficiency in service by allotting a plot measuring 125 sq. yards in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana and to pay damages amounting to Rs. 5,000/- on account of harassment and escalation in costs of construction. The opposite parties appeared before the District Forum-I and filed written statement wherein the pleas taken in the complaint were denied to the extent that the income criteria was ever abolished. A copy of the agenda was annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. It was contended that the complainant was not considered as his income exceeded as per the prescribed limit of Rs. 8,000/-. The jurisdiction of the District Forum-I was also challenged and it was contended that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint case.

The District Forum disposed off the complaint by issuing directions to the opposite parties to refund the earnest money of Rs. 2,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of his application till its refund. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

THE opposite parties - PUDA felt aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I and has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act). Notice was issued to the respondent Sh. Piara Singh who put in appearance through his Counsel Mr. Bachan Singh, Advocate. THE record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. N.K. Suneja, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bachan Singh, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully perused the judgment of the District Forum-I and have also gone through the record of the complaint case. The District Forum-I while deciding the complaint case mentioned at the outset in the impugned order that the complainant was not eligible even to apply for allotment of plot on account of income criteria being not fulfilled by him at the time when he moved the application. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer vis-a-vis the appellant as he was eligible to apply. He further contended that the case related to the District of Ludhiana as the respondent/complainant had applied for allotment of plot to the Estate Officer at Ludhiana and, therefore, the complaint could not be entertained by the District Forum, U.T., Chandigarh.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that out of three opposite parties, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint case have their offices situated in Chandigarh. THE opposite party No. 1 is the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development, Mini Secretariat, Sector-9, Chandigarh while opposite party No. 2 is the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SCO No. 63-64, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator. Only the opposite party No. 3, the Estate Officer, Urban Estate (PUDA) is located at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab, Sector 11. Sub-section 2 of the C.P. Act confers jurisdiction to institute a complaint in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution. In the instant case as mentioned above, the PUDA, opposite party No. 2 has its office in Chandigarh and opposite party No. 3 is working under opposite party No. 2 - PUDA. In the memo of parties filed in appeal, the same addresses have been mentioned in respect of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as are mentioned in the complaint case. Since the main office of PUDA is situated in Chandigarh and the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department is also situated in Chandigarh, the District Forum at Chandigarh had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint case. In our considered opinion, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum-I had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint case. It is significant to mention that the respondent/complainant has not filed any appeal against the order of the District Forum-I vide which the reliefs claimed in the complaint case regarding the issuance of directions to the opposite parties to allot a plot is concerned. The respondent/complainant has accepted the order of the District Forum-I. The District Forum-I has directed for the refund of the amount of earnest money of Rs. 2,000/- with interest. It is undisputed that the application for allotment of respondent was duly registered and the bank draft deposited by him for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as earnest money was accepted and got encashed by the appellants. The earnest money remained with the appellants. Since the respondent was found ineligible for allotment of the plot, the earnest money is to be refunded to him and we find no illegality in the order of the District Forum-I insofar as the direction for refund of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been issued to the appellants. So far as the rate of interest @ 18% per annum is concerned, the same is not in accordance with law as laid down 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 has reduced the rate of interest awarded @ 18% to @ 10% in case of refund of the amount deposited by an applicant for allotment of plot/land.

IN our considered view, the proper rate of interest would be @ 10% per annum from the date of its deposit by the respondent till its realization. So far as the amount of compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- is concerned, the same is clearly unsustainable inasmuch as the respondent was treated by the District Forum-I itself to be ineligible for allotment of a plot and consequently the complainant cannot be held entitled for any amount of compensation for the alleged deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as the respondent/complainant was not eligible to be considered for allotment. Moreover, it may be mentioned that the complainant himself had claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages on account of harassment and escalation of costs of construction but the District Forum-I has allowed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as damages which is clearly excessive of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- claimed in the complaint case. The costs of Rs. 2,000/- quantified by the District Forum-I is also not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The deficiency on the part of the appellants/opposite parties is only to the extent that the refund of the earnest money was not made to him by the appellants. The appeal thus succeeds partly and the order of the District Forum-I is modified to the extent that the direction regarding the award of compensation of Rs. 8,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/- are set aside. The appellants shall refund the earnest money of Rs. 2,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.