S.L.KHERA vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS is complainant''s appeal filed against order dated 7.8.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No. 646 of 1999 vide which the District Forum-II dismissed the complaint on the finding that no deficiency in service was proved on the part of the respondent.

THE complainant got his application registered with the respondents-Punjab Urban Development Authority [for short hereinafter referred to as the PUDA] in the year 1974 for allotment of MIG Flat and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as registration fees along with the application. THE application for allotment was given registration No. 1040/Mohali. THE Housing Board allotted a flat bearing No. 1388/10 of MIG Category in Phase - XI, Mohali to the appellant on hire purchase basis vide allotment letter No. PHB/Allot/A-85/14435 dated 24.7.1986 on the top floor of the building. THE appellant/complainant fell ill in January, 1995 and had to hospitalized. He had some complications of recurrence of the illness and remained ill till the year 1996. THE complainant was medically advised not to climb up and as such he made a representation to the respondents vide application dated 18/25.8.1986 within 30 days of the allotment letter for allotting him a dwelling unit on the ground floor. He requested that the allotment made to him be deferred till independent dwelling unit on ground floor was made available to him. He kept in touch with the opposite parties but got no sympathetic response from them. It is alleged that the opposite parties did not inform the appellant of his priority number due to the re-scheduling of the categories by PUDA which had succeeded the earlier Housing Board. THE appellant also wrote to the Minister of Urban Development to help him but he received no response. He again took up the matter regarding the allotment of house when riot hit persons were allotted flats and approached a non-governmental organisation functioning under the name and style as the Consumer Forum, Chandigarh and they referred the matter to PUDA but still PUDA did not respond and no MIG or HIG dwelling unit was allotted to him nor his earnest money of Rs. 1,000/- was refunded to him. It was under these circumstances that the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum-II praying that allotment of HIG/MIG (old type) dwelling unit be made in his favour free of costs as penalty and claimed compensation for mental torture and harassment. The complaint case was contested by the respondents/opposite parties who stated that the complainant had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the allotment letter and had himself moved an application for deferment of the allotment to him and so his allotment was cancelled vide letter No. 22846 dated 20.11.1986. It was alleged that there was no provision of allotment of free house to the complainant. A plea of non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties was taken. It was alleged that the complaint was barred by time. The appellant/complainant as well as the respondents/O.Ps. filed evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. The District Forum-II held that the appellant/complainant had failed to fulfil any of the conditions mentioned in the letter of allotment which was cancelled vide letter dated 20.11.1986. The complainant had himself vide letter dated 18/25.8.1986 requested the opposite party/predecessor-in-interest that the allotment may be deferred. It was held that the cancellation of allotment became final on 20.11.1986. The complaint was, however, filed on 29.7.1999 and as such it was barred by time. The period of limitation did not extend at any point of time and the complaint was dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation. It was also held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint was dismissed and parties were left to bear their own costs.

The notice of appeal was issued to the respondents who put in appearance through Brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.), Advocate. The file of the complaint case was summoned. The appellant moved an application under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] seeking condonation of delay, if any, in filing the complaint case. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. We have perused the impugned order and the record of the complaint case.

SO far as the bar of limitation is concerned, the District Forum-II has recorded a finding that the cause of action arose when the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 20.11.1986. The complaint had been filed on 29.7.1999 i.e., after more than two years of the date of accrual of cause of action. As mentioned above, the complainant has in appeal moved an application under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act in which he has furnished the reasons for not filing the complaint earlier and one of the reasons are that he had been continuously approaching the respondents and had even taken the help of N.G.O., namely Consumer Forum, Chandigarh who took up the matter vide applications dated 25.9.1998 and 19.5.1999 on record. The letter dated 19.5.1999 is in confirmation of his saving gram inviting the attention of Ms. Seema Jain, Additional Administrator regarding re-allotment of HIG/MIG house in SAS Nagar against registration No. 1040/1974 to Shri S.L. Khera, House No. 146, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. In this saving gram, a prayer was made regarding refund of Rs. 1,000/- deposited against Cash Receipt No. 1040/1974 dated 20.11.1974 vide Punjab National Bank Draft No. 246940 dated 20.11.1974. It may be mentioned that the part of the claim of the appellant is in respect of the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,000/- deposited along with seeking allotment of the house. This amount is admittedly lying in deposit with PUDA. This part of cause of action regarding the refund of the aforesaid money deposited by the complainant is a recurring and continuous one. Apart from it, the matter was being pursued by the appellant/complainant till 19.5.1999. The complaint was filed immediately thereafter. Keeping into consideration the fact that the provisions of the C.P. Act are to be made available to consumer for the better protection of his interest against the provider of service, we allow the application seeking condonation of delay and hold that the complaint is not barred by limitation and reverse the finding on this point recorded by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the appellant was allotted MIG flat No. 1388/10. The finding of the District Forum-II is that the appellant failed to comply with any of the conditions of letter of allotment and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant/complainant complied with these terms and conditions. The complainant, on the other hand, himself moved an application dated 18/25.6.1986 for deferring the matter of allotment of the house to him. The order of allotment of premises No. 1388/10 MIG category flat was cancelled by PUDA and the same was allotted to some other person. The cancellation of allotment was never challenged by the appellant and as such it became final and the position of the appellant is that of a mere applicant for allotment of HIG/MIG premises. We find no merit in the contention of the appellant that he is entitled for allotment afresh of a HIG/MIG dwelling unit under the scheme in which he applied for allotment of house on 20.11.1974. No fault can be found with the finding of the District Forum-II in this regard. However, so far as the case of refund of the amount of Rs. 1,000/- lying in deposit with PUDA since 20.11.1974 is concerned, the said amount is liable to be refunded to the complainant/appellant along with interest. We are of the considered opinion that the appeal be allowed to the extent indicated above and the order of the District Forum-II under appeal is liable to be set aside to this extent only.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh is set aside and modified to the extent that the complaint is allowed for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- deposited on 20.11.1974 vide Punjab National Bank Draft No. 246940 and Cash Receipt No. 1040 of 1974 dated 20.11.1974 with interest at the rate 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. the date of cancellation i.e., 20.11.1986 till payment. The respondents shall implement this order within one month from the date of its receipt. Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.