PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PUDA) vs TEJ SINGH BUTALIA

IT is an appeal against the order dated 27.9.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

IT is an admitted fact that initially the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied for one Kanal residential plot in Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 14.6.1972 along with a demand draft of even date for Rs. 1,350/- and his application was registered at Serial No. 8339. IT is also undisputed and is discernible from the facts on the file that after a long struggle of about 23 years the complainant was successful in getting allotted residential plot No. 2520 measuring 200 sq. yards in Sector 70, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide allotment letter dated 18.5.1995, photostate copy whereof is Ex. C-9 (Ex. R-5), at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yard requiring him to deposit Rs. 55,750/- within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter, which together with an amount of Rs. 4,250/- already paid by him as earnest money would constitute 25% of the total tentative price specifying at the same time that after making the payment of 25% of the price as above, he (complainant/allottee) shall take over the possession of the site allotted from the appellant-opposite party i.e. the Estate Officer, Urban Estate (hereinafter called the opposity party), within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. However, possession of the plot allotted was not given despite request made by the complainant time and again, inclusive of applications dated 12.5.2001 and 9.1.2002, photostats whereof are Ex. C-12 and Ex. C-13 respectively, apparently without any cause; rather contrary is available on record when one finds that the opposite party went to plead beyond all norms that physical possession was not given for the reason that site plan had not been got passed by the allottee, simply an unheard excuse for the short reason that preparation of plan is only feasible after de facto possession of the plot on due demarcation is given. IT is pertinent to mention here that as per record, opposite party under its wisdom thought fit to issue memo dated 17.5.2002 to the complainant through registered post, photostat copy whereof is Ex. C-19 (Ex. R-6), during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum to the fact that in accordance with term 4 of the allotment letter delivery of possession was to be deemed to have taken within 30 days from the date of allotment further mentioning that area of the plot allotted was 202.21 sq. yards and its measurement was 9.30 metres x 18 metres. However, term and condition No. 4 of the allotment letter nowhere talks of deemed possession and hence deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not delivering possession of the plot in question for a period of more than 7 years 3 months by all means is proved when the complainant admittedly had deposited entire sale consideration in time as per allotment letter. District Forum has rightly held so. We regard the relief given by the District Forum to the complainant, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The relevant portion of the order of the District Forum is reproduced hereunder: "5. Question that now arises is as to what relief may be accorded to the complainant under the circumstances. After due consideration we find it a fit case for issuing direction to the opposite party to deliver physical possession of the plot allotted to the complainant after due demarcation without any further delay. We also find it a fit case for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay back to the complainant interest amount of Rs. 18,000/-, Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- deposited by him while depositing instalments as per allotment letter photostat whereof is Ex.C9/Ex.R.5 with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. the dates of deposit till de facto delivery of possession of the plot and for this view taken we find support from the authority in case -"Sector 6, Bahadurgarh Plot Holders Association (Regd.) v. The State of Haryana" Vol. CXIV (1996-3) PLR-323, wherein Hon''ble the Apex Court ruled that interest on the amount of instalments could not be demanded till offer of possession is made and from authorities in case, Girdhari Lal Mohan Lal Gangani v. Sujay Subhalkar & Ors., 2001 (3) CLT 332, rendered by Hon''ble the National Commission, Raj Kumar Bajaj v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2002 (1) CLT 422, M/s. Cama Builders v. Raghvan Gopala Krishnan and Anr., 2002(2) CLT 101, which unanimously provide that interest on refund be @ 18% p.a. Likewise, we also find it as case for direction to opposite party not to charge any extension fee/penalty from the complainant for non-construction over the plot in question till the possession of the plot is given and ''time schedule'' thereafter as per allotment letter expires. In the same manner, we find it a fit case for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. one lakh as loss suffered by him owing to escalation in cost of construction occasioned due to non-delivery of possession despite allotment as amount claimed by the complainant under this head cannot be taken to be excessive in any manner, particularly in view of authority in case, PUDA v. Dr. Balbir Kaur Dhillon. 2002(1) CLT 213, wherein Hon''ble National Commission allowed Rs. 9 lakhs as escalation in cost of construction on account of delay in delivery of possession by 18 years. Even otherwise, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that cost of construction is not declining but undoubtedly, escalating. Still further, we also find it a fit case for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay compensation damages to the complainant for harassment, etc. which the old man has/had been suffering for over a period of 3 decades after he applied for allotment on 14.6.1972 and the same may fairly be assessed at Rs. 50,000/- particularly in view of authority in case J. Radhakrishnan v. A. Basheera and Anr., 2001(2) CLT 225, wherein Hon''ble the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis. Ordered accordingly."

In view of the detailed and reasoned order of the District Forum, we do not find any infirmity in its order. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.