R.B.PAMNANI vs AMARAVATI SAHAKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD.

THIS complaint has been filed by Sri R.B. Pamnani, resident of Flat No. 26, Bhopal House, Lalbagh, Lucknow against Amaravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Diamond Dairy Colony, Lucknow through its Secretary and Sri Ugrasen Singh, Secretary of the said Samiti. The facts of the case as contained in the complaint are as follows :

THE wife of the complainant, Smt. Kamla Pamnani was a member of Amaravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, the opposite party and she was allotted plot No. 4 in Yojna I, Faizabad Road in front of I.T. College, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. THE area of the plot was of 3,658 sq. ft. She had deposited the required amount of Rs. 23,500/- towards the consideration money of the aforesaid plot but the opposite party did not execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant''s wife. Smt. Kamla Pamnani died on 8.10.1985. This fact was known to opposite party No. 2, Sri Ugrasen Singh, as both the deceased and he were in the same office. THEreafter the complainant requested the opposite party that the plot allotted to his wife be transferred in his name and the sale deed be executed in his favour but instead of doing this, the opposite parties sent a notice in the name of the deceased asking her to furnish an affidavit as Smt. Pamnani had already died. In reply to this notice dated 14.10.1988, which was received by the complainant on 21.10.1988, a reply was sent by the complainant on 28.10.1988 to the opposite parties in which he showed his willingness to pay the development charges and also indicated that all the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Kamla Pamnani are prepared to execute no objection certificate in favour of the complainant for transfer of the plot and execution of the sale deed. THE complainant approached the opposite parties a number of times on this subject but no heed was paid. A notice was sent by the complainant through his Counsel dated 22.7.1993 asking the opposite parties as to what formalities have to be completed by the complainant to get the plot in question registered in the name of the complainant, but the opposite parties maintained completed silence. A notice was again sent on 23.9.1995 to the opposite party No. 2 asking for a reply but to no avail. THE complainant has claimed that opposite parties be directed to execute the sale deed of the plot in his name or to compensate him in terms of money for the plot in question, the value of which according to the present rate was Rs. 10,70,000/-. Notices were issued to the opposite parties on 9.2.1996 by registered post but they were not returned unserved and hence service of notice was deemed sufficient. The case proceeded ex parte.

Ex parte hearing took place on 9.9.1999. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the records of the case. It shows that the wife of the complainant Smt. Kamla Pamnani was a member of the Society, the opposite party No. 1. From the letter dated 14th October, 1988 issued by the opposite party, Amaravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, it is clear that plot No. 4 measuring an area of 3,658 sq. ft. was provisionally allotted to the wife of the complainant. In this letter the opposite party No. 1 had informed that the area had been reduced to 2,944.50 sq. ft. in view of the change of the lay out approved by the Lucknow Development Authority. In the said letter it was also required of the allottee to complete formalities in regard to the regularisation of the allotment and in case the member of the Society had died, then certain formalities under Limitation Act and U.P. Cooperative Societies Act be also done. Other formalities like furnishing of indemnity bond and the receipts etc. of the payment made were also required to be completed.

UNDER para 3 of the said letter, the provisional allottee, the wife of the complainant, was also asked that in respect of the plot provisionally allotted to her, an amount of Rs. 58,208.20 as development charges be also paid to the opposite party. It was also made clear that the price of the plot is provisional and the same may be increased due to increase in the rate of material and labour charges. By the time this letter was issued, the allottee Smt. Kamla Pamnani had already died a few days before. In response to this letter, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party No. 2, the Secretary of the Samiti that he is not able to lay his hands on the requisite papers of the case and previous letters as referred to in the letter of October 14, 1988 had not been received by him. It was also stated in this letter that his wife had requested the Samiti to hand over all her interests in the complainant''s name before she died, but there is no proof filed by the complainant in support of this plea. He was, however, prepared to pay development charges and complete necessary formalities as required by the Samiti.

A notice was also sent to the opposite party No. 2 wherein the complainant stated that the plot allotted to his wife, for which a consideration of Rs, 23,500/- was paid, be transferred in his name and sale deed etc. be executed. This notice is Annexure 4 of the complaint. Again vide Annexure 5 a letter was sent to the Secretary, opposite party No. 2 in which it was enquired whether the plot in question still stands in the name of his wife or it has been allotted to someone else. Some other details were also called for. These facts have also been stated on oath in terms of the affidavit filed by the complainant. Also copies of the receipts in regard to the payment of cost of the plot have also been filed. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was also deposited with the opposite parties on 18.9.1977 and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited on 13.7.1978 and a sum of Rs. 9,500/- was deposited on 7.2.1980. Thus the total amount deposited by the complainant''s wife comes to Rs. 22,500/- instead of Rs. 23,500/- as mentioned in the complaint.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant while arguing the case maintained that the present price of the plot is about Rs. 11 lacs.

FROM the perusal of the records it appears that the Society, the opposite party, was in the process of allotting plots atleast from the year 1977 and the process continued. Thereafter letter dated 14.10.1988 required the complainant''s wife to complete certain formalities but by that time she had died. The notices sent by the complainant vide Annexures 3, 4 and 5 of complaint are indicative of the fact that the opposite parties remained completely silent about the matter and failed to complete the formalities with the result that the complainant, who claims to be the legal heir of his wife, has remained deprived of the plot so allotted. It appears that the plot allotted was situated at an important place, the claim of the complainant was ignored and the plot was sold to somebody else which is unfair trade practice adopted by the Amaravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., the opposite party. In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get relief in terms of the allotment made to his wife as is evident from the letter of the opposite party dated 14.10.1988 which is Annexure 2 of the complaint. The opposite party is, therefore, liable to hand over the possession of the plot in question as indicated in the letter dated 14.10.1988 to the complainant provided he completes the formalities as stated in the letter of the Samiti as referred to above. The development charges and other charges will be paid by the complainant as demanded in the said letter of 14th October, 1988. In case the Samiti has allotted this plot to some other party, which is of course unlawful, then the Samiti, the opposite party, should be made liable to pay proper compensation to the complainant. The amount of Rs. 22,500/- deposited till the year 1980 shall be refunded alongwith interest at the rate of 15% to the complainant besides the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as the complainant has suffered deprivation of the plot for the last more than 10 years, because of the highly deficient service on the part of the Samiti. The complaint is liable to be allowed in these terms. Order The complaint is allowed and the opposite party, Amaravati Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited is directed to hand over the possession of the plot No. 4 measuring 2,944.50 sq. ft. as indicated in the letter of October 14, 1988 provided the complainant completes the formalities which include payment of development charges etc. In the event of failure to do so, the opposite party shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 22,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment and a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant within six weeks of the date of this order. In case the payment is not made within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, then interest at the rate of 15% on Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded as compensation shall also be payable by the opposite parties to the complainant. Let compliance be made within six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint allowed.