RAMESH MITTAL vs PUNJAB SMALL SCALE AND EXPORT CORPORATION

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short, hereinafter, to be referred as District Forum-I] date 6.5.2003 in Complaint Case No. 136 of 2001; ''Ramesh Mittal v. Punjab Small Scale Indstries and Export Corporation Limitd & Anr.''

THE complaint in nutshell is that Industrial Plot No. D-43 measuring 450 sq. yards was allotted to the Complainant in Industrial Focal Point, Moga, Punjab vide letter No.PSSIC/CE/Plot/351-356, dated 11.7.1978 for tentative price of Rs. 12,878/-. On depositing this amount in instalment the Complainant was delivered the physical possession of the plot. However, due to increase in the tentative price of the plot and due to effect of terrorism in that area, on 2.5.1988 the Complainant requested the OP to refund the amount deposited by him towards the price of the plot as he wanted to surrender the aforesaid plot. THE Op No.1 vide their letter dated 1.6.1988 asked the Complainant to produce the following documents : (a) Original allotment letter. (b) Original Official Receipts. (c) Original Possession Certificate. (d) Certificate of handing over possession.

The documents were sent in original vide letter dated 21.3.1995 and a reminder was sent on 10.7.1999 as the OP had not refunded the amount. Therefore, the Complainant recalled his demand notice dated 2.5.1988 and letter dated 21.3.1995 and 10.7.1999 and lodged a claim through a legal notice date 2.11.2000 for re-handing over the plot to him and he also opted to pay balance instalments. Since neither the refund was given nor the plot was re-allotted the Complainant filed this complaint and prayed for the following relief : (a) OPs be directed to re-hand over the plot. (b) OPs be directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 16,582/- along with interest @ 18% per annum with quarterly rest till realisation. (c) Compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental and physical harassment and costs of litigation.

The OPs have not controverted the receipt of the amount of Rs. 16,582/- and it has been affirmed on oath by a sworn affidavit that the documents asked for vide their letter dated 1.6.1988 were provided by the Complainant only on 21.3.1995, however, the refund of Rs. 16,582/- was made only on 11.1.2002 during the pendency of the complaint.

THE learned District Forum-I in their analysis of the evidence and arguments observed that though the documents asked for by the OPs were provided on 21.3.1995 the payment was made after almost seven years i.e. on 11.1.2002 whereas the OP should have processed the case of the Complainant in a month or so and as such the Complainant stood deprived of the use of his money whereas the OP made use of it. THErefore, the learned District Forum directed the OPs to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the Complainant on the said amount of Rs. 16,582/- w.e.f. 21.5.1995 i.e. two months after the date of submitting the documents, till the date of payment. It also awarded the Complainant Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation. Aggrieved by the order, the Complainant has filed appeal. The appeal was taken on board and record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-I. Notice was sent to the Respondents. Mr. Arun Kumar. Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Complainant whereas Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate represented the Respondents/OPs.

THE learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the only grouse in this case was regarding the date from which the interest has been awarded. He submitted that the original documents were submitted to the OP on 1.6.1988 itself whereas the interest has been awarded keeping in view the letter dated 21.3.1995 which was in fact only a reminder. He, therefore, prayed that interest be given w.e.f. 1.6.88 and not from 25.5.1995. In response, the learned Counsel for the Respondents referring to Para 4 of the original complaint submitted that the Appellant/Complainant had sought refund vide his letter lated 2.5.1988 and the Respondents/OPs had asked him to furnish certain document vide their letter No. PSIEC/EW/EO/19176, dated 1.6.1988. He further added that in Para 5 of the complaint, the Appellant/Complainant has himself stated that the documents were sent vide his letter dated 21.3.1995. In his submissions he further added that even in the appeal at Para 6(i) no date of supply of the documents has been mentioned. He also submitted that the refund was accepted by the Appellant/Complainant without any protest. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. From the arguments and reference to records of the complaint case, it is clear that the only point of controversy in the appeal is the date of submission of document asked for by the Respondents/OPs from the Appellant/Complainant because the award of interest has been linked to this date. In this context important documents on record are letter of Appellant/Complainant dated 2.5.1988, letter of Respondents/OPs dated 1.6.1988, legal notice sent by the appellant/Complainant dated 11.2.2000 and affidavits of the Appellant/Complainant and that of Mr. Raj Kumar, Senior Assistant of OP No.1, the letter of Appellant/Complainant dated 2.5.1988 makes only a request for refund whereas the letter dated 1.6.1988 of Respondent./OP No.1 seeks return of the documents in original and this letter has orginated from Chandigarh office. In the legal notice issued by the Appellant/Complainant at Para 5 it has been, inter alia, stated that "My client was perforced under compounded circumstances and callous approach of the Corporation in forwarding the listed documents in original to you vide letter date 21.3.1995 and so duly acknowledged in this regard." Similar averment has been made in the sworn affidavit of the Appellant/Complainant. It is pertinent to note that in none of the documents connected with the Complainant there is any specific mention of the documents having been provided by the Appellant/Complainant to the Respondent/OP No.1 on 1.6.1988 whereas the affidavit of the Complainant as well as legal notice clearly give this date of submission of documents along with letter of the Appellant/Complainant dated 21.3.1995. In this context it is relevant to add that the sworn affidavit of Mr. Raj Kumar. Sr. Assistant of Respondent/OP No.1 clearly states at Para 2 that the documents were supplied only on 21.3.1995 and this statement remains unrebutted. In view of the foregoing discussion it is very clear from the evidence on record that the Appellant/Complainant has totally failed to establish that he had supplied the required documents to the OPs on 1.6.1988, Based on evidence on record, we fully agree with the view of the learned District Forum that required documents were supplied by the Appellant/Complainant to Respondents/OPs only on 21.3.1995 and that they should have disposed of the case within a month or so thereafter. Therefore, in our considered view the impugned order of the learned District Forum awarding interest w.e.f. 21.5.1995 is fair and just and it needs no interference. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and this appeal No. 364 of 2003 is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.