SHARDA DEVI vs PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

COMPLAINT was filed by Mrs. Sharda Devi before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum) through her power of attorney Sh. Surinder Pal. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that a residential Plot No. 356-C, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Patiala, was allotted to her vide Allotment No. R-77(356-C)-71/4465 dated 23.11.1977. Dimensions of the plot as per allotment letter were 60'' x 90'' covering total area of 600 sq. yds. 10% extra amount was charged being a corner plot. Allotment letter is annexed as Annexure P-1 with the complaint. On 24.7.1978 possession of the said plot was given to the allottee. In that letter, it is mentioned that the plot is measuring 60''x 90'' i.e. total 600 sq. yards. This letter dated 24.7.1978 is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the complaint. All the conditions according to the letter P-2 were complied with by the complainant. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, instalment could not be paid in time. Afterwards all the dues were cleared alongwith penalty imposed by the opposite parties and the conveyance deed dated 20.1.1998 was executed by the other party with Mrs. Sharda Devi through General Power of Attorney, Sh. Surinder Pal. Conveyance Deed is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the complaint. Even in the conveyance deed dated 20.1.1998, it is clearly mentioned that the total area of the plot is 600 sq. yards. Complainant wanted to start construction on the plot so as to avoid heavy penalty levied for non-construction. He, thus, submitted building plan for approval. (Complainant had paid non-construction penalty upto 30.6.1998). When the building plan was submitted, the complainant received a letter dated 2.6.1998 from the opposite party (annexed as Annexure P-4 with the complaint) wherein he was informed that the area of the plot was only 50''9"x90''. After receipt of the letter, General Power of Attorney of the complainant visited the plot and on close inspection found that neitherr the plot measured 600 sq. yards for which the allottee had paid, nor it was a corner plot, for which the allottee had paid 10% of the total amount as extra charges. On one side of the plot, there is a plot, in which a transformer is installed by the Punjab State Electricity Board and on the other side there is another house. It is then mentioned in the complaint that the plot allotted to the complainant does not fit in the description of the plot, for which the allottee had cleared all the dues. Mrs. Sharda Devi as well as her General Power of Attorney approached the concerned authorities many times with the prayer that she should be allotted an alternate corner plot of 600 sq. yards in the same manner in which it was allotted to other persons. Example of Sh. Amarjit Singh was given, who was in similar circumstances allotted an alternative plot No. 441 in the same locality on 14.8.1997. The letter is attached as P-7 with the complaint. The respresentation made to the opposite parties is annexed as Annexure P-5 with the complaint. It was further represented to the opposite party that a corner plot No. 365-C, Phase-I, measuring 600 sq. yards, which was still vacant, may be allotted to the complainant; and in case no such corner plot is available then cost of 600 sq. yards plot may be refunded to the complainant at the prevailing rate in the locality. Following directions were sought from the District Forum to be given to the opposite parties in favour of the complainant : (a) The opposite party may be directed to allot an alternative corner plot measuring 600 sq. yards. (b) If corner plot is not available then in that case refund of 10% extra charges being corner plot be granted alongwith 18% per annum interest. (c) If 600 sq. yards plot is not available then refund for 100 sq. yds. be granted at the prevailing rate in the same locality alongwith 18% per annum interest. (d) The penalty charged by the opposite party for non-construction fee be refunded to the complainant alongwith 18% per annum interest. (e) Opposite Party may be directed to give the complainant minimum period of three years for construction of the house from the date of allotment of alternative plot or from the date of approval of map of the building. (f) As the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment, so a compensation of Rs. one lac may be given to the complainant. (g) Costs of Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation may also be awarded to the complainant.

THE opposite parties in their reply have admitted the allotment of the plot in question and execution of its coveyance deed. It is also conceded by the opposite party in their reply that the dimensions of the plot was 50''9"x90'' with total area of 507.5 sq. yards. It is also stated in the reply by the opposite parties that the plot has facilities of a corner plot and as such 10% extra charges of the total price of the plot was charged. It is stated in the reply that the complainant was duly informed that no other plot of 600 sq. yards was available and thus could not be given to the complainant. However, the opposite parties were ready to refund cost of additional price and non-construction of deficient area of 92.5 sq. yards. The complainant has filed an affidavit Ex. C-1 by way of evidence to substantiate the averments made in the complaint. Other documents Exs. C-2 to C-14 have also been filed to substantiate the averments made in the complaint. The opposite parties also produced the affidavit of Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu, Ex. R-1 and copy of the letter dated 23.4.1999.

After hearing learned Counsel and going through the record, District Forum ordered as under : "As per the above noted circumstances deficiency in service is established. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the excess amount charged on all counts in respect of deficient area of 92.5 sq. yds. of the plot with interest at the rate of 18% per annum calculated from the date of receipt of the excess amount under each head till actual payment. The period from 1.7.1998 till compliance of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of charging late construction fee. The complainant is further held entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the loss of time in raising construction and mental agony. Costs of Rs. 1,000/- shall also be paid to the complainant."

THE complainant being unsatisfied with the order of the District Forum has filed this appeal. The learned Counsel has brought to our notice the following points for consideration : (1) There is a specific averment in the complaint that there is a plot on one side and a transformer on the other side of the plot in question and this was not a corner plot and this averment has not been denied by the opposite parties. Learned District Forum has thus, according to the Counsel for the appellant erred in denying the relief of 10% extra amount charged from the appellant holding the plot in question as a corner plot.

(2) That there was specific averment in the complaint that opposite party had auctioned the plots in the same locality in the year 1997 (plots of 500-400 sq. yards) at the rate of Rs. 3,100/- per sq. yard and this averment was not denied by the opposite party and still the opposite party was not directed by the learned District Forum to refund the amount for 92.5 sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 3,100/- per sq. yard.

(3) The learned District Forum has erred in not directing the opposite parties to refund all the non-construction fee paid by the appellant till date because construction was not possible as the plot in question is not of 600 sq. yards. (4) As the appellant has suffered mental agony and harassment, learned District Forum has erred in awarding a very meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/- for such a long period of harassment and mental agony to the appellant.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has thus requested that the same relief, which have been asked for in the complaint be given to the appellant. We have heard the learned Counsel and have gone through the record of the case. We find truth in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

IT has been specifically mentioned in para No. 6 of the complaint that the plot in question is not a corner plot at all, as there is a road running in front of the plot and there is no road on any other side of the plot. On one side of the plot there is a plot in which there is a transformer installed by the Punjab State Electricity Board and on the other side there is another house. This averment has been fortified by producing evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant, which is annexed as C-1 with the complaint. In reply to para No. 6, the opposite parties have only stated that although the plot is of dimensions of 50''9"x90'' having total area of 507.5 sq. yards yet this plot has the facilities of a corner plot. On the corner side there is a green belt, as such 10% charges of the total price of the plot was charged. IT is stated in the reply that even the Plot No. 375-C, which is on the back side of the plot and having the same facilities is also a corner plot and in that case also 10% extra charges had been levied. This reply does not specifically rebut the averment made by the complainant by asserting that the plot in question was not a corner plot as there is no road on any side of the plot and on one side of the plot there is a plot in which there is a transformer installed by the Punjab State Electricity Board and on the other side there is a house. The opposite parties could easily file a map or could produce any other evidence to show that the plot in question was not a corner plot but they have failed to do so. Thus, according to us, it is proved on the record that the plot in question was not a corner plot. The opposite parties have thus erred in law and on facts in charging 10% extra money after considering the plot in question as a corner plot.

REGARDING the second point, admittedly, a residential plot No. 356-C, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Patiala, measuring 60''x90'' i.e. 600 sq. yards was allotted to the complainant on 23.11.1977. As per allotment letter dimensions of the plot were also mentioned as 60''x90'', covering total area of 600 sq. yards. In the possession letter dated 24.7.1978 also the area of the plot was mentioned as 600 sq. yards. Even in the Conveyance Deed dated 20.1.1998, it is clearly stated that the total area of the plot in question was 600 sq. yards. When the complainant wanted to construct the plot so as to avoid heavy penalty levied for non-construction, he submitted a building plan for approval to the opposite parties. (It is pertinent to note here that the complainant had paid non-construction penalty upto the period 30.6.1998). When the building plan was submitted, it was only at that stage that the complainant received a letter dated 2.6.1998 (Annexure R-4) by which he was informed that the plot allotted to the complainant was only 50''9"x90''. In these circumstances, when the prices of the land have shot up then to award only 18% per annum interest on price of 92.5 sq. yards will not be adequate compensation for the complainant. Either he should have been given an alternative plot of 600 sq. yards as it was given to some other as has been mentioned in the complaint or he should have been adequately compensated for the same. Admittedly, opposite parties had fixed the reserve price at Rs. 1,900/- per sq. yard in respect of plots in other Phases of Urban Estate. Thus, if we calculate the price of 92.5 sq. yards @ Rs. 1,900/- per sq. yard, it comes to Rs. 1,75,000/- approximately. Merely awarding of 18% interest to the complainant in these circumstances will not be sufficient when the prices of the land have risen too much. After taking into consideration all the pros and cons, we think, it will be in the interest of justice to award Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation for an area measuring 92.5 sq. yards, the sale price of which remained deposited with the opposite party since 24.7.1978. Obviously, the complainant could not make use of his money deposited with the opposite party by purchasing another immovable property or even otherwise spending the same for some useful purpose. Regarding suffering, mental agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties, we feel in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 20,000/- will be a sufficient amount to compensate the complainant.

In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the District Forum and order hereunder : (1) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation for an area measuring 92.5 sq. yards, the sale price of which remained deposited with the opposite parties since 24.7.1978. (2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to him.

RESULTANTLY, the order of the District Forum dated 19.7.1999 is set aside. The appeal is allowed in the terms as stated above, with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal allowed with costs.