PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs INTER PAL SINGH

PETITIONER Punjab Urban Development Authority & Anr. (for short ''PUDA'') is aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, which in turn upheld the order of the District Forum awarding interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,000/- deposited by the respondent-complainant on 25.10.1989 and refunded on 23.7.1996 by PUDA without any interest. The interest was directed to be payable after two years from the date of deposit.

PUNJAB Housing Development Board, predecessors of PUDA gave an advertisement in various newspapers in observance of ''World Habitat Day'' on 2nd October, 1989 for launching a scheme on the theme of "Shelter, Health and Family". Under this scheme a demand survey was to be conducted in various towns of the State of PUNJAB including town Dera Bassi. This demand survey was for social housing to assess requirements of free hold built up houses on ''higher purchase basis'' and on ''attractive terms'', closing date by which persons desirous of acquiring house was October 31, 1989. Tentative price of one room, kitchen, bath and WC was fixed at Rs. 60,000/- and registration amount payable with application was Rs. 1,000/-; for two rooms tenement, the tentative price was Rs. 1,60,000/- and amount of registration was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-; while in the case of 3 bed rooms tenement the tentative price was Rs. 3,00,000/-. Applications were to be made on the form prescribed which could be obtained on payment of Rs. 10/- as fee, if made in cash and otherwise Rs. 20/- if payment was made by way of Bank draft/postal order. One of the terms for the person applying, was that he should not own either himself or spouse or dependent children house or plot in the urban estate or in the colonies established by the Urban Housing Development Board, Improvement Trusts, Municipal Corporations/committees or colonies set up under the PUNJAB Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975. Minors were also not eligible. It was also mentioned in the advertisement that those who had already registered for the towns mentioned in the advertisement should send fresh applications along with Bank draft of balance amount, if any. It was specifically mentioned that ''no interest on registration fee shall be payable''. Lastly it was mentioned that the PUNJAB Housing Development Board "reserves the right to modify or abandon any scheme". Respondent in the present case as noted above, submitted his application on 25.10.1989. By letter dated 23.9.1996 this amount was refunded by PUDA to the respondent stating that it was "earnest money" that was being refunded. On 30.7.1996 respondent wrote to PUDA demanding interest for keeping his money all this period. No reply was given by PUDA, which led the respondent to file a complaint in the District Forum on 24.8.1998. In the reply to the complaint in the District Forum, the only ground of the PUDA was that survey envisaged for getting information of the prospective applicants and that respondent had applied under the Demand Survey Scheme and had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as registration fee. It was further stated that the scheme did not materialise and was later on abandoned and since right was reserved with the PUDA to modify or abandon the scheme the amount of Rs. 3,000/- was duly refunded. This and other connected complaints raising similar grievance were allowed by the District Forum by order dated 4.7.2000. Cost of Rs. 550/- was also awarded to the respondent. Not satisfying with the order of the District Forum, PUDA went in appeal to the State Commission which by its order dated 20.12.2000 upheld the order of the District Forum. However, no cost was awarded while dismissing the appeal.

Still aggrieved PUDA has come to this Commission. It was submitted by Ms. Issar, learned Counsel for the PUDA that there was no deficiency in service involved. It was wrong on the part of the District Forum and State Commission to exercise their jurisdiction. She said no hope was given to any of the complainants that they will be allotted flat and it was specifically mentioned that no interest was payable. She said the amount could have been refunded as and when demanded by the complainant. She said that the scheme envisaged that survey was to be conducted as to how many were the persons in need of the house in the towns regarding which advertisement was issued and if it was not feasible to formulate any scheme, the money was to be refunded without any interest. All this argument appears to be very attractive but Ms. Issar was unable to tell us as to why it took PUDA almost seven years to conclude that no scheme was feasible and that money should be refunded and that too marked as earnest money. We however, agree with her that mentioning amount being refunded as earnest money could be a mistake of the office. But the terms of the advertisement do not mean that money could be kept for indefinite period by PUDA. It is a strange argument like an autocrat, as it does come from a public body like PUDA that money could be refunded if demanded by the applicant. No such argument was raised in the District Forum. Stringent conditions had been put that no person could apply if he or his spouse or minor children had any house or plot in colonies set up by the Authorities. By keeping the money all this period and not even informing the applicants as to the state of the survey, PUDA has belied the hope and expectations of the respondent and persons similarly situated. No explanation has been offered as to why the scheme was not feasible. How many were the applicants and what steps PUDA took all these years to come to a decision that money should be refunded. Both the District Forum and State Commission upheld that there has been gross deficiency in service on the part of PUDA. Keeping the money of the respondent all this period without any apparent reasons it is sheer exploitation by the PUDA.

AFTER the order of the State Commission which confirmed that of the District Forum, it was not necessary, in the circumstances of the case, for PUDA to knock at the door of this Commission in its jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. PUDA a Government body can afford litigation. It is public money which is being spent by PUDA to drag the applicants to unnecessary litigation. District Forum has observed that two years period was enough to conduct a Survey which in our opinion was rather too long. State Commission has not awarded any cost which again in our opinion, it should have awarded. Cost follow the event. By its very conduct, PUDA has wrongfully kept the money of unwary public all this period keeping the hopes of the applicants alive for a flat at the price indicated in the advertisement. Then PUDA is bold to say that there was no deficiency in service ! We do not think it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 2,000/-. Revision Petition dismissed with costs.