PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs GURDEEP SINGH SABHARWAL

THIS appeal has been filed by Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Addl. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali against order dated 19.12.2000 in Complaint Case No. 506 of 1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I); Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sabharwal, House No. 3283, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh v. The Chairman, Punjab Housing Development Board, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh and The Asstt. Estate Officer-3, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Phase-I, Mohali (Punjab).

THE facts narrated briefly are as under: Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sabharwal deposited Rs. 4,000/- for an HIG Type II House in Mohali, Punjab vide receipt No. 11773 on 15.10.1980 with the appellant/O.Ps. Punjab Housing Development Board and was allotted Registration No. 804 for the same. As per averments made in the complaint, the appellants/O.Ps. did not respond to any of his communications asking about the status of his application. THE punjab Housing Development Board now PUDA vide their letter No. PHB-Allot-A-1-91/26720 dated 25.11.1991 informed him that as per policy of the Board his application will be considered along with the other applicants. In spite of this, the respondent/complainant has averred that he did not receive any response from them. Another letter dated 31.3.1993 was written by respondent/complainant, a copy of which has been brought on record requesting the appellant authorities to consider his name for the allotment, in the subsequent draws. THE appellant vide its letter No. PUDA-97/6468 dated 18.3.1997 informed the respondent/complainant that the earnest money of Rs. 4,000/- deposited by him on 15.10.1980 is being refunded. However, the respondent/complaint has stated that the amount has still not been received by him till date. THE respondent/complainant has alleged that the Assistant Estate officer, PUDA vide its communication dated 5.3.1997 wanted to examine the receipt of the money deposited by the respondent/complainant which was supplied vide letter No. CF/5029/97 dated 17.11.1997 but the needful was not done. It was further alleged that the respondent/complainant had to wait for 18 years and still the house was not allotted to him. Since the prices of dwelling units have gone up considerably, the respondent/complainant has averred that he has been put to financial loss due to this deficient act of applicant/O.Ps. THE respondent/complainant has prayed for a direction, to be issued to PUDA to allot the house applied for by the respondent/complainant. In the reply filed by the O.Ps. PUDA through the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali, a preliminary objection regarding the non-maintainability of the complaint has been raised. The O.Ps. have admitted the factum of deposit of Rs. 4,000/- by the respondent/complainant and have averred that applicant''s name was considered in the draw of lots held in 1989. Further the appellants/O.Ps. have averred that no right has accrued to the respondent/complainant by mere depositing the registration amount of Rs. 4,000/- and the applicant''s name was considered at the time of draw of lots held by them and it has been clarified in the advertisement itself that the deposited amount shall not carry any interest. Further the appellant/O.Ps. have averred as the aforesaid amount was sent through not delivered to the respondent/complainant by a cheque, hence there is no ground for the maintenance of this complaint.

On merits, the factum of deposit of Rs. 4,000/- by the respondent/complainant and allotment of Registration No. 804 and his inclusion in the draw of lots held in the year 1989 have been admitted and it has further been stated that since the complainant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots, a cheque bearing No. RPK-456532 dated 30.11.1996 drawn on Punjab National Bank was sent to the complainant but the same could not be delivered to him. The appellant/O.Ps. have further averred that since PUDA had refunded the amount of the applicants including that of the respondent/complainant, as per policy decision there is no deficiency in service as the respondent/complainant can get the refund of the amount after producing the original receipt or identity card. The allegations of deficiency in service have been denied.

REPLICATION to the above reply was filed on 23.9.1999 by respondent/complainant citing the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Dev. Authority v. Mr. M.K. Gupta, and the case of Chief Administrator, HUDA v. Mrs. Raj Dulari. The respondent/complainant has also prayed that the appellants/O.Ps. be asked to furnish the proof if the complainant''s name was considered in the draw of lots by the appellant authorities as claimed by them in the reply. The District Forum-I held the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to refund the amount of Rs. 4,000/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of deposit till realisation. A consolidated sum of Rs. 3,000/- was granted for the damages suffered due to inconvenience, harassment and agony, in addition to Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation.

AGGRIEVED against the above order of the District Forum-I, the appellant, PUDA has filed the present appeal pleading, inter alia, that the respondent/complainant was considered in the draw of lots in the year 1989 and since he was unsuccessful in the same, subsequently, the amount was refunded to him by the appellant on its own. The appellant has assailed the order of the District Forum-I on the ground that the District Forum-I has not taken into consideration that it was the respondent/complainant who opted out of the scheme by writing a letter to the appellant authorities. Since the respondent/complainant was considered for the draw of lots for which he had applied for and was unsuccessful in the same and amount was refunded to him, the order of the District Forum-I is erroneous to the extent of granting interest on the amount. Further, the appellant has alleged that awarding the interest @ 10% on this amount and granting Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation was not justified in the face of the facts that it was the respondent/complainant who wanted the refund. Since the amount was refunded, in pursuance to the letter of the respondent/complainant, so there was no harassment or inconvenience and the District Forum-I was not justified in granting compensation on that ground. In the light of the above submissions, the appellant prayed to set aside the order of the District Forum-I and accept the appeal. Upon filing of the appeal, notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sabharwal, who put in appearance through his attorney, Mrs. Brij Inder Deepak. Record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I. A written reply has been filed to the memo of appeal on behalf of the respondent, by Mrs. Brij Inder Deepak contending, inter alia that the order of the District Forum-I does not suffer from any infirmity and the same was defended by her on the ground that the money deposited with the appellant way back in 1980 has not been refunded till date. It was further submitted that the above deposited amount has remained with the appellant for a long period of 21 years and the appellant offered to refund the said amount in 1997 since without any interest was not justified. Hence the respondent/complainant has been put to considerable financial loss in addition to harassment and mental agony as neither the plot was allotted nor the money was refunded.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the attorney of the respondent/complainant and examining the rival contentions of both the parties and going through the entire record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellant that money was refunded in 1997 after including the name of the applicant for draw of lots held at the relevant time and since unsuccessful, deposit of earnest money was sought to be refunded lacks merit. Keeping the amount of earnest money for 21 long years without communicating the status of the application and offering to refund the money after more than 2 decades is a glaring deficiency in service. Since the respondent/complainant has been deprived of his money for such a long period, the District Forum-I was justified in granting interest on the same @ 10% which we consider to be fair and just rate in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA v. R.K. Goel, SLP (Civil) No. 3324/97 decided on 24.10.1997. Further the contention of the appellant that no harassment has been caused to the respondent/complainant and the appellant assailing the order of the District Forum-I on the ground that it has erred in law in granting compensation in this case, cannot be accepted in the face of blatant deficiency on the part of the PUDA in keeping the amount of the respondent/complainant for an inordinate period and pleading that though the amount was sent to the respondent/complainant but the same could not be delivered to him itself is an example of a glaring deficiency vis-a-vis this consumer. We are of the considered opinion that the respondent/complainant underwent harassment and mental agony due to the aforesaid deficient services rendered by PUDA for which a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of litigation awarded at Rs. 1,000/- by the District Forum-I are not being considered excessive by this Commission. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order of the District Forum-I is upheld and the appeal filed by the PUDA is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.