PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sohan Lal

IT is an appeal against the order dated 31.5.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum, Ropar). Common grounds between the parties have been mentioned in the opening para of the order, which are reproduced hereunder : "Admittedly residential plot No. 708 (200 sq. yards) at Sector 69, Mohali was originally allotted on 7.9.1995/10.10.1996 to Sh. Bhagat Ram father of the complainant, who subsequently transferred the same to the present petitioner-complainant resulting in a re-allotment letter dated 25.9.1998 in favour of the transferee. Admittedly, the total sale price of the plot was Rs. 2,80,000/- out of which 25% was deposited by the allottee at the initial stage while the balance was payable through six annual instalments as indicated in the allotment letters Exs. A-2 and A-4. Admittedly, the instalments in question are being paid regularly. Admittedly, the allottee was under an obligation to raise construction over the plot within a period of three years vide Rule 13 of Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development (General) Rules, 1995. Admittedly, an offer for delivery of possession was made for the first time on 15.3.1999 after the institution of this complaint on 22.2.1999."

ADMITTEDLY, the possession of the plot in question was delivered to the respondent-complainant on 15.3.1999. After considering the matter to some extent, District Forum issued the following directions : (1) The interest recovered from the petitioner-complainant through payment of instalments upto 14.3.1999 be adjusted in the next instalment regarding which intimation about the net liability of the allottee be sent to him through registered post within 30 days. (2) The complainant is also held entitled to an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) as token compensation-cum-costs of these proceedings in view of steep escalation in cost of construction over the recent past.

It is not disputed by the Counsel for the parties that possession of the plot has been given to the respondent/complainant on 15.3.1999.

THE only matter which needs to be decided now is with regard to the following directions sought by the respondent-complainant from the District Forum : (i) THE opposite parties be directed to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service by refunding the amount of interest already recovered on the instalments from the complainant, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment and further not charging interest on future instalments of price till possession is offered. (ii) THE O.Ps. be directed also to pay to the complainant compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and inconvenience.

District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant only by referring to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as 1996 (3) PLR 323, Sector 6, Bahadurgarh Plot Holders Association v. State of Haryana.

DISTRICT Forum has neither discussed nor has given any reasons as to how the judgment in Sector 6, Bahadurgarh Plot Holders Association''s case (supra), was applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In our considered view, the facts and law contained in that judgment are entirely different from the facts and law in the case in hand. The order of the DISTRICT Forum is highly cryptic and non-speaking. The DISTRICT Forum before awarding the relief should have decided after taking into consideration the material on the record as to whether the appellants/opposite parties were deficient in service or negligent in performing their duties towards the complainant/respondent. This question of deficiency in service has not even been dealt with by the DISTRICT Forum and no finding has been returned by the DISTRICT Forum as to whether the appellants/opposite parties were deficient in service or negligent in performing their duties towards the complainant/respondent. Our observations made above shall not effect the decision of the DISTRICT Forum on merits. In these circumstances, we allow the appeal; set aside the order dated 31.5.1999 of the District Forum and remand the case back to the District Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. Record of the District Forum be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed.