CAPT.C.P.GUPTA vs JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVT.

THIS complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service of the opposite parties and claiming compensation on account of their negligence in service.

THE learned Counsel for the parties are unreservedly agreed that herein, there is no dispute whatsoever of facts. THEse may, therefore, be noticed with relative brevity. In this complaint, the complainant alleged that out of the Government Discretionary Quota, he was allotted a Plot No. H-272 in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana on 19.9.1983 by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab on instalment basis and after having paid the final instalment on 16.1.1989, he requested the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to get the plot registered in his name but got no reply even after his repeated reminders. It has been averred in the complaint that he went to Ludhiana personally and met the Chairman, Shri Multani who told him that his plot had been allotted to someone else long ago by mistake. THE case of the complainant is that at the intervention of the then Governor Punjab, another plot No. A-116 in Raj Guru Nagar Scheme was allotted to him on 3.9.1991 and thereafter he sent a couple of letters to the Chairman, Improvement Trust Ludhiana to get the newly allotted plot registered in his name but the latter adopted the same recalcitrant attitude to remaining silent and not acknowledging his letters. THE complainant''s case is that after getting no response, he again went to Ludhiana to get the plot transferred in his name but knowing that he was in for another shock, he was asked by Sh. Multani to pay Rs. 77,511/- being the difference in price of the old and the newly allotted plot plus Rs. 27,129/- as interest and penalty for not depositing the enhanced amount in time. It has been averred in the complaint that since no letter of new allotment with enhanced price was ever received by him, he filed an appeal before the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh who waved off the penalty and interest amount for the period from 16.8.1989 to 8.11.1990. According to the complainant, in one of the meetings with the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana he was told to deposit Rs. 77,511/-immediately failing which his allotment may be cancelled and as such he was left with no other option but to deposit the enhanced amount, which he did under protest. His case is that he made various representations for the refund of Rs. 77,511/- but received no reply and that even after having paid the enhanced price of the plot, he was denied the transfer of plot in his name. It is alleged that the hitch in the transfer of the other plot in his name was stated to be that the actual size of the newly allotted plot as per their Master Plan was 460 Sq. Yards whereas the letter of allotment showed 400 sq. yards. THE complainant''s case is that he had offered to pay the extra cost of 60 Sq. Yards but the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana neither accepted the cost of 60 sq.yards nor were they prepared to transfer the plot to him probably for want of Government sanction. Having failed to receive any relief on making representations, the present complaint was preferred before this Commission claiming transfer of plot No. A-116 in Raj Guru Nagar Scheme or in the alternative some other plot of the same size and price in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme be allotted to him and also claimed Rs.6,11,985/-as compensation on the grounds as mentioned in para No. 10 of the complaint. On notices being issued, the opposite parties filed their written statement and a fragmentary preliminary objection has been taken by it to which the reference is unnecessary because the same is not pressed. Paragraphs Nos. 1to 4 of the complaint stand wholly admitted and the rest is denied. It has been pleaded that since the penal interest and the penalty amount had not been paid by the complainant, the plot No. A-116 in Raj Guru Nagar Scheme was not transferred to him by the Improvement. Trust, Ludhiana.

In the rejoinder, the complainant has contested the version of the opposite party No. 2and added that the latter was not justified in asking for the amount of Rs. 27,129/- towards interest and penalty over and above the amount of Rs. 77,511 /- deposited by him on account of difference in price of the plots. In support of his factually unchallenged case, the complainant has placed on record 15 documents (Annexures C1 to C15) and in defence the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record 4 documents (Annexures R1 to R4). No oral evidence has been let in on either side.

WE have heard the complainant and Sh. Kataria, learned Counsel for the respondents and considered the record with the requisite care. At the very outset, what strangely meets the eye is the fact that herein for the reasons best known to the opposite party No. 2, it has virtually allowed the complainant''s case to go unrebutted. As already noticed, the detailed and exhaustive arguments of the complainant are butteressed by as many as 15 documents (Annexures C1 to C15) which are not challenged on behalf of the opposite parties. The conclusion seems inevitable that the complainant''s Case as set up remains virtually unchallenged. The other salient feature which prominently stands out is the fact that now about 10 years have passed and the opposite party No.2 has done nothing with regard to handing over the possession of any plot to the complainant. Against the aforesaid background one has to examine the crucial question whether the opposite party No.2 has defaulted in performing its part of the contract and thus has been guilty of grave deficiency in service which it had agreed to render to the complain. Apparently, aware of the inherent and indeed fatal weakness in its case, the opposite party No. 2 attempted to take shelter under the pretence that since the complainant had not deposited the amount of Rs. 27,129/- being the interest and penalty imposed on him for not making the payment of the enhanced amount of Rs. 77,511 /- in time despite his prior intimation, the possession of plot No. A-116 in Raj Guru Nagar Scheme was not delivered to him. The crucial documents on which the above said issue would turn is obviously the letters (Annexures R1 and R2) allegedly sent to the complainant on his Delhi address in Punjabi by which the latter was asked to pay the enhanced price of Rs. 77,511 /- for the plot No. A-116 within 30 days. The firm stand of the complainant is that he did not receive any such letters sent to him by the ordinary post. His case is that the allotment letters and the demand notices are always sent to the allottees through registered post and why was it not done in his case. The submission aforesaid is so patently meritorious that it is unnecessary to labour the point. Even Shri Kataria, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties had to virtually concede his inability to repel the contention of the complainant. He has admitted the fact that the allotment letters and the demand notices are always sent to the allottees through registered post and such like letters should not have been sent through ordinary post. So the reason for not handing over the possession of plot No. A-116 in Raj Guru Nagar Scheme to the complainant is clearly a matter of extanuation and the blame and the consequence there for, cannot be shifted on the shoulder of the complainant for no fault of his. We have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the demand of Rs. 27,129/- on account of penalty and interest from the complainant was untenable and the same is hereby quashed.

IT is well to recall that the complainant had paid the whole price of plot No. H-272 allotted to him in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar but the possession of that plot was not delivered to him by the opposite party No. 2 as the same was already allotted to someone else. The case of the complainant is that even the possession of the other plot No. A-116 in Raj Guru Nagar Scheme was also not delivered to him because of the fact that the actual size of the plot in the Master Plan is 460 sq.yards whereas the letter of allotment shows 400 sq yards. His case is that he had, however, offered to pay the extra cost of 60 sq. yards but the opposite-party No. 2 neither accepted the cost of 60 sq. yards nor was it prepared to transfer the plot to him probably for want of Government sanction. As already noticed, the complainant had been denied the possession of the aforesaid plots to him due to the internal problems of the opposite party No. 2. IT is difficult to compute compensation in the monetary terms in such a situation but there is no manner of doubt that he stands deeply prejudiced by not getting his plot in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, a posh colony. This apart, inevitably he has suffered mental and physical harassment for having been denied of what he thought was his right since 1989 and thereafter being compelled to go from door to door requesting for an alternate plot, which was also not given to him. He has prayed that the amount of Rs. 1,20,600/- paid by him to the opposite party No. 2 be refunded to him, along with interest from the dates of payments and also the liquidated damages in the sum of Rs. 4,32,000/-, as detailed in paragraph 10 of the complaint. In the present case, it appears to be the dereliction of duty on the part of the staff who were associated with the allotment of plots. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana has been established to help the common man and not to punish them. The order to a citizen to deposit the savings of his life towards the price of a plot and not to deliver the possession of the same to him for a long time is not less than a punishment for him. The grouse of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 2 has failed to deliver the possession of plot No. A-116 and has refused to refund his money, further the money paid by him is being illegally withheld by the opposite party No. 2. On scrutiny of the record it is revealed that the complainant had contacted the opposite party No. 2 and requested it through registered letters to refund his amount of Rs. 1,20,600/- but there was no response from its side. In the light of the above discussed facts and the unrebutted documentary evidence on record, we find consistency in the claim made by the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has admitted having received the amount of Rs. 1,20,600/- from the complainant on various dates. The claim of the complainant for the refund of Rs. 1,20,600/- (Rs. 43,089/- + Rs. 77,511/-) against the opposite party No. 2 is, therefore, accepted and it is ordered to refund the said amount. The opposite party No. 2 is further ordered to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.c. on various payments made by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2 with effect from the respective dates of payment upto the date of the realisation of the amount. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we think that the complainant has been amply compensated by the award of interest and therefore, we are not inclined to accept the complainant''s prayer of the liquidated damages. He has claimed Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him for a period of about 10 years. For all this, we are inclined to think that a modest compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the ends of justice. As a result of the above discussion, we order that the opposite party No. 2 shall refund the amount of Rs. 1,20,600/- along with running interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on various payments made by the complainant with effect from the respective dates of payments upto the realisation of the amount within a period of three months from the receipt of the order, along with costs of Rs. 1,000/- and to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to him within the said period, failing which compliance would be enforced under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party No. 2 is also ordered not to recover the penalty amount of Rs. 27,129/- from the complainant.

THE complaint stands disposed of in the terms aforesaid. Complaint disposed of. ______________