Sushila Devi Aggarwal vs Jan Sankalp Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd

THIS order will govern the disposal of OP Nos. 161/2002 and 162/2002.

OP No. 161/2002 was filed by Ram Kumer Aggarwal alleging that he became member of Jan Sankalp Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd., opposite party. Opposite party carved out a colony called Karamyogi Enclave Extension. Complainant booked a plot and paid total amount of Rs. 72,610 by means of cheques. By the order letter 9.10.1991, the opposite party informed the complainant that he had been allotted plot No. R-18. After receipt of this letter, the complainant approached the opposite party on a number of occasions seeking execution of title documents and handing over possession of the said plot. On not getting favourable response, the complainant made a complaint to the Additional District Magistrate City, Agra on 19.2.1993 which was sent to the City Magistrate, Agra for investigation. Before the City Magistrate vide writing dated 7.4.1993, the opposite party admitted the receipt of the said amount. However, it alleged that the number of plot allotted to the complainant was I-22 instead of R-18. After completing investigation, the City Magistrate ordered registration of a case against the officers of the opposite party under Sections 420/406, IPC. Police recorded the statements of a number of persons including Vinod Kumar Aggarwal who had taken the charge of society after Ashok Kumar had left. He admitted receipt of aforesaid amount from the complainant. He, however, stated that plot No. R-18 had been allotted to Ms. Madhu Singhal. On possession of neither of these plots being given, the complainant got a legal notice dated 28.6.2001 served upon the opposite party through M/s. Rajiv Garg and Company, Advocates. In reply to the notice the stand taken by opposite party was that dispute is to be referred to arbitration within the jurisdiction of Agra. Attributing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the reliefs claimed in the complaint are as under: (1) Allot the plot or in the alternative pay current market value of the plot Rs. 25,00,000 (2) Pay Rs. 15,110 along with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 25.11.1989 Rs. 58,626.80 (3) Pay Rs. 57,500 along with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 15.12.1989 Rs. 2,23.100.00 (4) Damages/Compensation for the agony suffered for unfair trade practice of respondents Rs. 10,00,000.00

AFTER the death of complainant on 5.2.2009, on an application filed on 24.12.2009 his LRs have been allowed to be brought on record by the order dated 6.1.2010

OP No. 162/2002 was filed by Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of said Ram Kumar Aggarwal on the allegations similar to those made in OP No. 161/2002 except that the number of the plot allotted was R-19. Amount paid to the opposite party was Rs. 72,610.

OPPOSITE party was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.10.2008.

IN support of the averments in complaints Ram Kumar Aggarwal and Smt. Sushila Devi filed their affidavits. Mr. S. Mathur, Advocate for the complainants has pointed out that possession of either of the plot Nos. R-18 or I-22, R-19 or I-23 cannot be given to the complainants as they have been sold by the opposite party to other persons. From the unrebutted affidavits of two complainants it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the complainants had paid Rs. 72,610 each towards the cost of plot to the opposite party who has either delivered the possession of the plots nor refunded the money received. At this juncture, it will be profitable to refer to a portion of the decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=AIR 2004 SC 2141. In para No. 10 of the judgment it was held: "That compensation cannot be uniform and can cost be of uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be refunded. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply refunded then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore, the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher."

COMPLAINANTS are not only entitled to the refund of Rs. 72,610 paid by each of them with interest which we quantify @ 10% p.a. from the dates of payment but also to compensation for their having been deprived of he escalation of price of the plot from the opposite party. It is a matter of common knowledge that there has been steep rise in the cost of land during the last decade. In the facts and circumstances of case, the complainants are entitled to compensation which is quantified at Rs. 10 Lakh each.

ACCORDINGLY, the complaints are partly allowed with direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 72,610 along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the dates of deposit and pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakh to each of the complainants. Complainants will also be entitled to cost of Rs. 5,000 each. Awarded amount will be paid within six weeks by the opposite party. Complaints Partly allowed.