PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MAJOR SITA RAM SHARMA

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is by Punjab Urban Development Authority challenging order of the District Forum, Ropar dated 25.11.1998, whereby the following directions were given : "(i) The opposite parties are directed to allot a 200 sq. yards residential plot to the complainant at Mohali (and preferable Sector 71) at the rate and on terms and conditions prevalent in the year, 1988 for the allotment of plots in Sector 71 to the applicants of Defence Categories. The compliance of these directions be made within 60 days, under intimation to our office. (ii) The complainant is held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) payable within 60 days failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 26.1.1999 till actual realisation, besides an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) as costs of these proceedings."

ACCORDING to the averments made in the complaint, in the year 1976, he applied for the allotment of a residential plot measuring 200 sq. yards at Mohali along with an initial deposit of Rs. 1,000/- against Registration No. RD-700. The complainant stated that after his retirement from service, he intimated the opposite party-PUDA, the factum of his retirement and his changed residential address vide letter dated 1.3.1981 and 24.1.1981 Ex. A-3 and Ex. A-4 respectively with further query about the state of allotment of a plot in his favour and when he failed to receive any reply, the complainant sent another letter dated 11.10.1982. Ex. A-5 through registered post followed by further letters/petitions dated 13.9.1985 Ex. A-7 and 13.2.1989 Ex. A-8 and also a reminder dated 27.2.1998 Ex. A-9. The complainant also visited office personally in May, 1998 when he learnt that in the year 1988 the State Government of Punjab had decided to allocate the entire Sector 71, Urban Estate, Mohali for allotment of plots to defence personnel for which new applications were invited while old applicants were also to be considered but that no consideration took place in the case of the complainant. The complainant prayed for allotment of plot besides a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of proceedings. The opposite party having admitted the initial registration of the complainant for allotment of a plot as well as allocation of a complete Sector 71, Mohali for defence personnel, contested that the required exercise of option vide letter dated 12.3.1982 Ex. R-1 was not done by the complainant because of which his initial deposit of Rs. 1,000/- was returned vide registered letter dated 12.3.1996 Ex. A-5 which as returned due to non-availability of the addressee at the given address.

The parties produced evidence on affidavits and documents on the basis of which the impugned order was passed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has come in appeal.

IN the appeal before us, the appellant has not made any new point. It has been reiterated that the different communication alleged to have been sent by the respondent-complainant regarding his change of permanent address were not received by the opposite parties. A letter dated 12.3.1982 was sent to the respondent-complainant was received back undelivered. IN this letter the complainant was called upon to give his option to be exercised within 30 days regarding the size of the plot for which he wished to be considered on the basis of gross annual income criteria. By a public notice published in ''The Tribune'' dated 3.9.1995 options for choosing specified plots of different areas were invited by 4.10.1995 for allotment of plots to persons including the category of the respondent. As stated this was in way in continuation of the earlier option to be exercised by the respondent in response to the letter dated 12.3.1982 returned undelivered from the address of the respondent. Since, the respondent failed to exercise the requisite option indicating the size of the plot desired by him no right of consideration vested in the respondent. The cheque for the initial money lying deposited was sent back to the respondent vide registered letter dated 12.3.1996 was again returned undelivered with the remarks that he had left without any address. Since no other address was given by the respondent-complainant other than the one given in his application dated 13.9.1976. The appellants were in no position to give any further intimation or notice to the respondent. We have heard both the parties through their Counsel and have gone through the records including impugned order. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant furnished new address to the opposite parties.

EX. A-5 (with postal receipt) is a letter dated 10.11.1982 which was sent under regd. cover with acknowledgement due to the opposite parties and the acknowledgement EX. A-6 was received back by the respondent-complainant duly signed and stamped. Vide this letter, the complainant informed the opposite party in the following words : "I have since retired from Government Service after rendering 37 years of my services in the Army and B.S.F. On retirement I have taken up a job temporarily with the Tumus Electric Corporation Ltd., Rewa (Madhya Pradesh), Pin 486001. This address may kindly be noted for all future correspondence as I have vacated Government accommodation at New Delhi on retirement. I had intimated this change of my address twice in the year 1981."

The new address was again repeated below the signature of the applicant/complainant in his aforesaid application. Another letter dated 27.2.1998 Ex. A-9 also shows that the same was received in the Office of the Estate Officer, PUDA vide Diary No. 3676 dated 3.3.1998. This stand established from the evidence on records that the intimation for change of address was given to the opposite parties by the complainant. The District Forum has rightly concluded that there was no circumstances on record to convince that even the Registered A.D. letter dated 11.10.1982 Ex. 5 was not received in the office of the opposite parties. Similarly, there appears to be no reason why the other communications dated 13.9.1985 and 13.2.1989 respectively Ex. A-7 and Ex. A-8 followed by letter dated 27.2.1998 Ex. A-9 failed to reach their destination. The opposite party sent the allotment letter through exercise of option letter dated 12.3.1982 Ex. R-1 was sent on the old address of the petitioner Major Sita Ram Sharma and similar was the case of the latest communication dated 12.3.1996 Ex. R-5. The District Forum has rightly presumed that the letters were received in the office of the opposite parties. From the evidence (Ex. A-6) it is established that the letter with regard to change of address was received in the office of the opposite party-PUDA. The District Forum has also rightly concluded that the publication of notice Ex. P-4 in ''The Tribune'', Chandigarh is of no consequence particularly when the complainant had intimated his residence in the State of Madhya Pradesh where the circulation of this newspaper has not been proved.

SINCE the opposite parties failed to send the option letter at the current address as intimated Ex. A-5 due to negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer for that.

IN view of the circumstances and the reasons briefly discussed in the impugned order we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum while allowing the complaint of the District Forum. However, we do not agree with quantum of compensation. The District Forum has assigned on convicing reasons for fixing the quantum of compensation with due regard to the agony and frustration of a complainant who wanted to have a plot at Mohali. The District Forum has allowed the compensation with the observation as under : "Under these circumstances, a grave deficiency in service at the hands of the concerned functionaries of the opposite party-PUDA is patent because of which the petitioner is indeed entitled to a compensation much larger than the limit fixed by him in his prayer clause at Rs. 50,000/-."

According to the affidavit filed by Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Ved Parkash (General Power of Attorney) Ex. A-1, it has been stated that the complainant has suffered heavy loss due to escalation of cost of construction and has also faced harassment and mental agony at the hands of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to compensation/damages amounting to Rs. 25,000/- on this account. Besides, the complainant is entitled to cost of the complaint. In the light of the evidence, the compensation should not exceed more than Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded for the negligent act of the opposite parties being on higher side is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly accepted. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be payable intend of Rs. 50,000/-, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of the District Forum, subject to above modification, is affirmed. No order as to costs. Stay order dated 4.1.1999 is hereby vacated. Appeal partly allowed.