State of Punjab vs MALKIAT SINGH GILL

THIS appeal is directed against the Order dated 27th October, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh.

THE facts out of which this appeal has arisen may be summarised as under. That in the month of April 1990, the appellant issued advertisement inviting applications for allotment of free hold plots in Sector 32- A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana. The complainant applied for allotment of a plot of 500 sq. yards and deposited the earnest money of Rs.10,000/- with the appellant. As no action was taken by the appellants for the allotment of plot to the complainant for about one year, he served legal notice claiming interest at the rate of 24% on the earnest money deposited. According to the complainant he also sent reminder dated 25.9.91 for non- payment of interest and damages claimed by the complainant. According to the complainant the appellant increased the price of land at Ludhiana approximately 800% of the prevalent price of 1990. Having failed to receive any relief on making representations to the appellants, the complainant preferred a complaint before the State Commission for the allotment of plot in Sector 32- A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana or in the alternative amount of Rs. 9,16,575/- was claimed.

The opposite parties (appellant herein) contested the claim of the complainant. It was pleaded that the draw of lot was scheduled to commence from 18th December, 1991 at Chandigarh but the same was postponed as some of the applicants wanted the price of the plots to be reviewed and brought down and some of the applicants filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1705/1992 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against the decision of the appellant for fixing price of the plot at Rs. 1.200/- per sq. metre and the High Court stayed the operation of the order of the Punjab Housing Board by its order dated 27.1.1992. Ultimately, that writ petition was dismissed on 4.9.1992 and due to the reasons that the operation of the order of the Board was stayed by the High Court, the plot could not be allotted to the complainant and that the earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the complainant was refunded to him on 26th November, 1992.

AFTER considering the relevant contentions of the parties, the State Commission al- lowed the complaint and the appellants were directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of deposit upto the date of refund i.e. 26th November, 1992. The State Commission made the following observations: "The factum regarding issuing of advertisement for the allotment of free-hold plots at Samrala Road, Ludhiana has not been denied by the respondents. The payment of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money for the allotment of plot at Ludhiana by the complainant is also not denied by the respondents. It is also on the record that the respondents had fixed the price of the plots at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. metre and the applicants had filed writs in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the High Court stayed the operation of the order of the respondents on 27.1.1992 and ultimately those writs were dismissed on 4.9.1992. On scrutiny of the record it is revealed that the complainant was not willing to pay the increased price of the plots to the respondents and then the latter refunded the earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant on 26.11.1992. In the light of the above-discussed facts, we accept the claim of the complainant so far as the interest payable to him on the refunded amount is concerned. The respondents are ordered to pay interest at rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of deposit upto the date of refund i.e. 26.11.1992."

Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the appellants filed this appeal by invoking powers of the Commission under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their help.

MS. Rachna Joshi Issar, Advocate, appearing for the appellant contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted not to abrogate other law such as the Contract Act. The State Commission fell in error in awarding interest to the complainant when the terms of the contract between the parties elaborately stipulated "No interest will be paid on earnest money." The State Commission could not award interest by ignoring the terms and conditions of the contract governing the rights and liabilities of the parties. On the other hand Counsel for the respondent contended that the State Commission rightly awarded interest, as there was undue delay on the part of the appellants in allotting the plot to the complainant. We have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. At the outset, we may state that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 672 of 1996 - The State Officer, PUDA v. Jaspal Singh Dara, decided on 5th May 1997. The facts of this case and that of Jaspal Singh Dara (supra) are identical. In the case of Jaspal Singh Dara also the complainant in response to the advertisement dated 25th March, 1990, had applied for allotment of plot measuring 300 sq. yards in Sector 32-A, Urban State, Ludhiana and had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 20th April, 1990. The complainant was not successful in the draw of lots. He applied on 24.9.93 for the refund of his deposit. The complainant was refunded the amount of his earnest money on 18th January 1994 with 10% interest with effect from 1st February, 1992 but no interest was paid for the earlier period from 20.4.90 to.31.1.92. The complainant approached District Forum for grant of interest for the period 20th April, 1990 to 31st January, 1992. The District Forum allowed the claim of the complainant. The appeal filed by the Estate Officer, PUDA was dismissed by the State Commission. The Estate Officer, PUDA filed revision petition against the judgment of the State Com- mission. This Commission allowed the revision petition and the order of the State Commission as well as the District Forum awarding interest from the date of deposit till 31st January, 1992 was set aside. The Commission returned the following finding in that case: "In this case the Punjab Housing Development Board had brought facts on record that the draw of lots was scheduled to commence from 18th December, 1991, that the draw of lots was postponed as some of the applicants wanted that the price for the plots to be reviewed and brought down, that the decision of the, Housing Board was challenged by some of the applicants in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing writ petitions and that all those writ petitions had been dismissed and the Board''s case charging Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yard had been upheld by the High Court. The delay in the draw of lots was because of the circumstances beyond the control of the Board. The Board, however, on its own decided that with effect from February, 1992 all the applicants would be paid interest on their earnest money at the rate of 10% per annum till such time the allotment of the plot is offered or the amount is refunded. There was no jurisdiction in the District Forum and the State Commission to direct payment of interest when it was not found that there was any negligence on the part of the Board or any deficiency in service in the matter of draw of lots. The draw of lots was delayed because of pendency of the writ petitions relating to price fixation."

From the facts appearing in Revision Petition No. 672 of 1996, it appears that the appellant on its own decided that with effect from February, 1992 that all the applicants would be paid interest on their earnest money @ 10% till payment. The appeal in hand which is on similar facts has to be decided in accordance with the decision of this Commission rendered in the case of Estate Officer, PUDA v. Jaspal Singh Dara (Revision Petition No. 672 of 1996). In the result, we partly allow this appeal and modify the order of the State Commission to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% from 1st of February 1992 to 26th of November 1992 on the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. If the amount is not already paid the same may be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. ______________