PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PUSHPA SAGAR KOHLI

THIS order will dispose of Appeal Case Nos. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167 all of 2000. These appeals have arisen out of order dated 4.7.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case Nos. 1194, 1197, 1193, 1213, 1195, 1192 and 1776, all of 1998 respectively. The short question which arises for our consideration and disposal is whether the District Forum-II was right in allowing interest on the amount of registration fee deposited by the respondents/claimants at the time when they got themselves registered for allotment of houses in H.I.G., M.I.G. and H.I.G. categories. Similar question arose before us at the time of hearing of Appeal Nos. 158, 164, 168, 169 to 172, all of 2000 filed by the present appellant i.e. Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority (PUDA) through its Chief Administrator, S.C.O. No. 63-65, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The judgment was delivered in appeal filed by P.U.D.A. in complaint case filed by Shri Narinder Kumar Sharma. The District Forum-II had also treated as leading, the Complaint Case No. 137 of 1997 filed by Shri Narinder Kumar Sharma against Shri Sudhir Mittal, Chief Administrative Officer, Housing Urban Development Authority and the State Officer, Housing Urban Development Authority, Phase-I, Mohali (for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA). The complaint cases bearing Nos. 1214 of 1998 - Kulwant Singh v. PUDA, 1215 of 1998 - Om Parkash v. PUDA, 1335 of 1998 - Hartej Singh v. PUDA, 59 of 1999 - Balbir Singh v. PUDA, 987 of 1998-Inder Pal Singh v. PUDA, and 1173 of 1998 - Bhupinder Singh v. PUDA, were also decided by the said judgment. The judgment was delivered in Appeal No. 169 filed by PUDA against Sh. Narinder Kumar Sharma, against the common judgment delivered by the District Forum-II in Complaint Case No. 137 of 1997 filed by Shri Narinder Kumar Sharma. The other appeals arising out of the complaint cases decided by the common order of the District Forum-II were also decided by the judgment delivered in Appeal No. 169 of 2000. The following tabular chart will show the number of respective appeal, complaint case and other details regarding the complainant, opposite party and amount deposited along with the date of deposit : Sr. No. Appeal Number Number Complaint Complainant''s Name Name of O.P. Amount Deposited/ Dated 1. 159/2K 1194/1998 Pushpa Sagar Kohli PUDA 3000/30.10.1989 2. 160/2K 1197/1998 Pushpa Sagar Kohli PUDA 4000/7.3.1989 [Decided alongwith C.1192/98 - Ved Vyas Kohli v.PUDA 3. 161/2K 1193/1998 Archana PUDA 3000/30.10.1989 4. 162/2K 1213/1998 Anil Kumar PUDA 3000/30.10.1989 5. 163/2K 1195/1998 Sanjiv Kohli PUDA 3000/30.10.1989 6. 165/2K 1196/1998 Sumit Kohli PUDA 4000/7.3.1989 [Decided alongwith C.1192/1998 - Ved Vyas Kohli v. PUDA] 7. 166/2K 1192/1998 Ved Vyas Kohli PUDA 4000/7.3.1989 8. 167/2K 1776/1998 Jaswinder Singh PUDA 3000/16.11.1989 Here it may be pointed out that the District Forum had separately decided three complaint filed by Shri Ved Vyas Kohli, Shri Sumit Kohli and Ms. Pushpa Sagar Kohli by judgment dated 4.7.2000 rendered in Complaint Case No. 1192 of 1998 filed by Shri Ved Vyas Kohli. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority i.e. P.U.D.A. has filed three separate appeals against the judgment dated 4.7.2000 of the District Forum-II delivered in the case of Sh. Ved Vyas Kohli. The other cases, which appear in the above tabular chart, were decided along with complaint case of Shri Narinder Kumar Sharma. The bunch of appeals which we decided earlier arose out of the judgment of the District Forum in the bunch of complaint cases decided along with complaint case filed by Sh. Narinder Kumar Sharma vide judgment dated 4.7.2000. It may be pointed out that the District Forum-II has passed similar orders while deciding the bunch of complaint cases along with complaint case of Sh. Narinder Kumar Sharma and the bunch of three cases decided along with complaint case of Shri Ved Vyas Kohli. In the two sets of judgments, the District Forum-II awarded interest @ 17% per annum on the amount of registration fee up to the date of payment of amount to the complainant less the period of first two years from the date of deposit and also allowed costs of Rs. 550/- to each of the complainant. A careful perusal of the judgment passed in the case of Sh. Ved Vyas Kohli and Sh. Narinder Kumar Sharma''s case, it will appear that the District Forum relied on the judgment delivered by this Commission in Appeal Case No. 76 of 1997, Punjab Urban Development Authority & Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh & Anr. While deciding a bunch of appeals on 20.12.2000 which have been referred to above being Appeal Nos. 158, 164, 168, 169 to 172, all of 2000, we affirm the order passed by the District Forum and dismiss the appeal by holding that the respective claimants were entitled to claim interest on the amount deposited. We also hold that the rate of interest of 18% per annum could not be held to be either excessive or unreasonable. The ratio of the decision rendered in Appeal Nos. 158, 164, 168, 169 to 172, all of 2000 will apply to the facts of the case involved in this bunch of appeals which are being decided by this common judgment. In other words, the facts of the instant appeal are squarely covered by the decision rendered by us in the case of PUDA v. Narinder Kumar Sharma, being Appeal No. 169 of 2000. Resultantly, we find that the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh had rightly awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of deposit made by the respective claimants for the period referred to above and has also rightly awarded costs of Rs. 550/- and no interference is called for in these appeals. Resultantly, all the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.