PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs INDERJIT KAUR

THIS is an appeal filed by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA), Chandigarh and Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana arrayed as O.Ps. in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2002 against order dated 16.2.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] vide which the complaint was allowed to the extent that a compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant on account of inordinate delay from 19.9.1999 to 2.5.2000 and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation was awarded to the complainant and the O.Ps. were directed to pay the same to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The facts lie in a narrow campus :

UNDISPUTEDLY the respondent Smt. Inderjit Kaur wife of S. Manjit Singh Gulati resident of H.No. 420, Phase I, Mohali approached the O.P. - Estate Office, PUDA, Ludhiana for allotment of MIG flat, which was valued at Rs. 5,72,000/-. Smt. Inderjit Kaur was allotted the flat vide letter of allotment bearing No. 340-MIG (s), Super Sector 70, Mohali/1630 dated 7.4.1998. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- initially in September 1997 and paid another amount in June 1998 of a sum of Rs. 85,815/-. These payments were made as per the terms and conditions embodied in the letter of allotment. The complainant till June 1998 paid a total sum of Rs. 1,45,815/-. On 19.2.1999, Smt. Inderjit Kaur made a written request to the Estate Office, PUDA, Ludhiana for refund of money deposited by her as she was not interested in purchasing the aforesaid flat. This matter was dealt with by the O.Ps. who allowed the request of the complainant and delivered a cheque of Rs. 92,795/- after deducting 10% of the total sale consideration of the flat. The complainant received the said cheque for a sum of Rs. 92,795/- under protest. She made a representation to the appellants that in the case of another allottee namely Smt. Tripta who had been allotted Flat No. MIG(s), Super Sector 70, Mohali - 236, the appellants- PUDA had refunded the amount deposited by her after deducting an amount equal to 5% of the sale consideration. The complainant alleged that the appellants/O.Ps. discriminated her in no justifiable reason and their decision to deduct 10% of the total sale consideration was arbitrary and it amounted to deficiency in service. Moreover, the decision was taken by the appellants/O.Ps. belatedly and the matter was kept pending from 19.9.1999 to 2.5.2000. The District Forum held that this delay also amounted to serious deficiency in service. The defence taken before the District Forum by the O.Ps./appellants was that it was the complainant herself who did not comply with the letters sent by PUDA on 2.5.2000 and 17.7.2000 and did not furnish the requisite information particularly regarding raising of any loan from HDFC Bank by hypothecating the flat allotted to her. The complainant herself delayed the furnishing of the information needed and also in returning letter of allotment and letter of possession of the aforesaid flat. Apart from it, it was contended that since the O.Ps. were entitled to deduct from the amount deposited by the allottee on his/her withdrawal from the same, not exceeding 10% of the total sale consideratin, hence the discretion exercised by the appellants could not be tested and held arbitrary or discriminatory in the light of the case of Smt. Tripta to whom Flat No. MIG - 263 was allotted and on her withdrawal from taking the flat, deduction was made of a sum of 5% of the total sale consideration.

The District Forum has not accepted the verison of the appellants on both the points and held that the appellants discriminated the complainant from Smt. Tripta and the decision to deduct maximum amount of 10% of the total sale consideration was clearly an act, which amounted to arbitrariness and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

MR. Balwinder Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellants - PUDA, in the first place, contended that since PUDA had the discretion of deducting a sum equivalent to 10% of the total sale consideration, hence, the exercise of such a discretion could not be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory and amounting to deficiency in service. The District Forum referred to condition No. 8 of the letter of allotment, which has been extracted in Para 4 of the impugned order and reading of which shows that in case of breach of any condition of allotment letter or regulations or non-payment of any amount due together with the penal interest as may be determined by the authority, the house shall be liable to be resumed and in that case an amount not exceeding 10% of the total consideration money shall be forfeited. There can be no dispute about Condition No. 8 enabling PUDA to forfeit an amount not exceeding 10% of the total consideration money from the amounts deposited by an allottee but this amount of 10% is the highest limit of the amount of forfeiture for which there should be cogent and sufficient reasons as to why a particular allottee was deprived of the money deposited by her by resorting to the forfeiture of the maximum amount of 10% of the total sale consideration. Here, it may be mentioned that it is not disputed that in case of Smt. Tripta, the PUDA, the appellants had deducted a sum of 5% of the total sale consideration while in some other cases, the deduction was even less than 5% ranging from 2% to 5% as is mentioned in Para 2 of the impugned order. The appellants PUDA being statutory authority discharging public functions is expected to deal with the allottees evenhanded and they are not expected to punish a particular allottee by imposing a forfeiture of maximum amount of 10% of the total sale consideratin till PUDA is able to show that such an allottee deserve the maximium forfeiture of 10% of the sale consideration to be deducted from the total amount deposited by such an allottee.

IN the instant case, apart from the averments that the complainant did not respond promptly to the letters referred to above issued by PUDA are not by themselves sufficient to forfeit the maximum amount of 10% of the total sale consideration. Not only this, the authorities delayed the matter from 19.9.1999 to 2.5.2000 when eventually the deduction was made of the forfeited amount of 10% of the total sale consideration from the amounts deposited by the complainant and for that also, there are no valid and justifiable reasons. It may be pointed out that the requirement of PUDA was the furnishing of the information by the allottee i.e., the complainant as to whether she had raised some loan from HDFC Bank by hypothecating the flat allotted to her. As a matter of fact, PUDA could directly right, which it eventually did, to the HDFC Bank to have the requisite information regarding the complainant in hypothecating flat allotted to her for raising a loan and the HDFC Bank informed PUDA that the complainant had not approached for obtaining any loan by hypothecating the flat allotted to her. The PUDA, therefore, cannot put a blame on the complainant and to take a decision to forfeit the maximum amount of 10% of the total sale consideration. PUDA could fix a date and intimate the same to the complainant to appear before it on a particular date and time and bring with her the requisite documents and settle the matter regarding the refund of the amount deposited by her. It may be mentioned that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a social legislation and it has been enacted with the pronounced object of providing better protection of the interest of consumers. In our considered opinion, the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and granted relief to the complainant/respondent. There is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of appeal. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.