Charanjit Singh vs AUTHORITY CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT

THIS order will dispose of two aforesaid appeals which are directed against order dated 18.9.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 586 of 2001, Charanjit Singh v. Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA) & 2 Ors.

THE relevant facts which require mention for decision of these two appeals may be narrated briefly as under : THE complainant Shri Charanjit Singh applied for allotment of a house in Ludhiana constructed by PUDA. Consequently, House No. 307, Dugri Road, Phase 3, Ludhiana was allotted to him against total tentative costs of Rs. 5,30,200/-. THE complainant deposited 10% of the amount as earnest money being a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. He further deposited a sum of Rs. 1,68,840/- at the time of allotment of the house. THE balance amount of Rs. 3,01,360/- was to be paid in three equal instalments on which interest was to be calculated by PUDA. THE complainant subsequently deposited a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- in one instalment as a lump-sum amount. This amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- was worked out after a rebate of 10% is allowed on Rs. 3,01,360/- vide clause 11 of the allotment letter. As a matter of fact, after the rebate, the amount which was required to be deposited was worked out to be Rs. 2,71,224/- against which the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- which meant that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 14,776/- in excess of the due amount. PUDA subsequently revised the policy in the month of November, 1999 and directed the Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana to permit the balance amount to be deposited in thirteen yearly instalments after waiving the interest component. THE complainant had already deposited the entire amount in the month of April, 1999. THE complainant under hypothetical supposition believed that if he had also defaulted in payment of instalments, under the order of the Additional Chief Administrator (Policy), PUDA, Chandigarh then he would have received the exemption in the shape of waiver of interest. THE complainant was, however, not granted this exemption as he had already deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- to the Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana prior to the revision of the policy in the month of November, 1999. However, the complainant submitted an application in the month of July, 2000 before the respondent No. 3 for issuance of a ''No Due Certificate'' (for short hereinafter referred to as the NDC) and for refund of interest which had accrued to him and had been waived in his case as well and also prayed for refund of the alleged excess amount of Rs. 14,600/-. THE Estate Officer, PUDA forwarded the application of the complainant to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 for necessary action. However, no action was taken in this matter by the office of O.P. No. 2. THE complainant sought personal audience with the officers of the PUDA on 19.7.2000 and subsequently sent a letter dated 25.9.2000. THE NDC had, however, not been issued to him even up to 30.7.2001. Another letter was sent by the complainant to the Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana on 19.7.2000 vide which audience was sought on 25.9.2000 and thereafter, the complaint was filed. The O.Ps. filed joint written statement alleging that the complainant was not a consumer and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merit, it was denied that any excess amount had been paid by the complainant. It was also denied that the O.P. No. 2, Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA had waived of or remitted the interest. The O.Ps. took a plea that earlier the price of the house was Rs. 5,72,000/- but later on it was revised and fixed at Rs. 5,30,200/-. The remaining facts regarding the rebate of 10% on the balance amount to be paid in lump-sum was admitted. It was alleged that the complainant after the rebate of 10% of the principal amount was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,32,504/- against which he had deposited only Rs. 2,86,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 46,504/- stood remained due on 30.4.1999. The complainant was informed about it vide letter dated 10.8.1999 and in response to this letter, he deposited a sum of Rs. 52,500/- i.e. the balance amount of Rs. 46,504/- + interest on this amount till the date of payment i.e. 29.11.1999. While referring to the waiver or remission of interest by O.P. No. 2, it was contended that the O.P. No. 2 revised their policy in the month of November, 1999. Previously the balance price was to be paid in three annual instalments but as per the revised policy of O.Ps., implemented in the month of November, 1999, the allottees could pay the balance price of 13 yearly instalments instead of instalments spread over three years. It was under the new policy that the interest for delayed instalments under the old policy was ordered to be waived but the complainant had already paid the amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- in the month of April, 1999 and as such he was not entitled to the waiver of the interest on delayed payment as the new policy was not in existence in the month of April, 1999 and it came into existence in the month of November, 1999. The complainant had already been given concession of 10% rebate on the principal amount and interest on the two years instalments amounting to Rs. 51,224/- had also been waived in his case and he was given full benefit for making payment of the lump-sum payment as envisaged in the letter of allotment.

Regarding NDC, it was pleaded that the same was issued to the complainant by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana vide letter dated 1.8.2000 and its copy was attached along with the written statement. The allegations of deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. were denied.

THE complainant filed his affidavit and copies of the documents. THE O.Ps. placed on record copy of allotment letter. THE repayment schedule of 256 MIG houses at Dugri Road, Phase 3, Ludhiana under the old Scheme; a calculation sheet of the amount of House No. 307, Dugri Road, Phase 3, Ludhiana due to be paid by the complainant and paid by him. A copy of NDC was also placed on record. The District Forum held that under the new policy, the interest i.e. Rs. 5,996/- on it stood waived of and as such the O.Ps. were not justified in realizing the interest of Rs. 5,996/- from the complainant. The deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. to this extent was found proved. It was further held by the District Forum that NDC had already been issued and there was no deficiency in service in this regard. Resultantly, the complaint was partly allowed and the O.Ps. were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 5,996/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 29.11.1999 till payment with Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation.

THE complainant as well as the O.Ps. both felt aggrieved by the impugned order and they have filed separate appeals and since both the appeals are directed against one and same judgment of the District Forum, hence these two appeals are being disposed off by this common order, which is being passed in Appeal No. 289 of 2002. THE respondent in both the appeals put in appearance. THE record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Counsel for the O.Ps. We have also carefully perused the impugned order and the record of the complaint case. So far as the appeal filed by the O.P. - Chief Administrator, PUDA, Chandigarh and 2 others is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. G.S. Kanwar, Advocate submitted that the complainant could not take advantage under both the policies i.e. under the old policy as well as under the new policy. It was contended that under the old policy, he earned the rebate of 10% and had made the payment of all the amounts which was due to be paid by him and as such he could not be adjudged a defaulter under the new policy which clearly permitted the allottees of the old policy who had not deposited the balance amount in three instalments, to pay the same in 13 instalments and to them the concession under the new policy would become admissible. As mentioned by the District Forum in the impugned order, the controversy regarding non-issuance of NDC no longer survives and no arguments have been advanced in that regard before us. The only dispute is about the benefit which the complainant seeks under the new policy. It is, however, not disputed by the complainant that he made all the deposits which he was required to pay by the O.Ps. prior to formation of the new policy. The District Forum has made a mention in Para 8 of the impugned order that it had been admitted by the O.P. that they had implemented the new scheme in the month of November, 1999 under which the interest on the delayed instalments had been waived off.

IN order to appreciate the controversy sought to be settled, it would be relevant to note despite deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- by the complainant in the month of April, 1999, the O.Ps. informed the complainant that a sum of Rs. 46,504/- were still due from the complainant on 30.4.1999. This fact was intimated vide letter dated 10.8.1999. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 52,500/- vide letter dated 29.11.1999 when the new policy came into being. The complainant was required to pay interest of a sum of Rs. 5,996/- and the total amount was calculated as Rs. 3,32,504/-. IN nutshell, the complainant was still defaulter in depositing the entire amount and when the same was deposited by him, the new policy had already been issued. IN this view of the matter, the District Forum, in our considered opinion, rightly held that the interest of a sum of Rs. 5,996/- stood waived off under the new policy and, therefore, the O.Ps. were not justified in realizing the aforesaid amount from the complainant. The letter of allotment filed in the shape of photocopy showed that the total price of the house was Rs. 5,72,100/-. The instalments were mentioned in this letter as three instalments due to be paid in April 1999, April, 2000 and April 2001. Each instalment was of a sum of Rs. 1,42,095/-. The interest on the first instalment was calculated at Rs. 70,337/-; on the 2nd instalment Rs. 46,891/-, and on the 3rd instalment Rs. 23,446/-. The total sum of Rs. 1,40,674/- was worked out as interest on the three instalments.

CLAUSE No. 11 of the letter of allotment mentioned that a rebate of 10% of the fixed price is also admissible in case of an allottee making lump-sum payment within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter and if some of the instalments had been paid and the remaining instalments were deposited in lump-sum, in that case also ten percent rebate will be admissible on the balance principal amount paid in lump-sum. As per the averments made in Para 3 of the impugned order, the complainant was still required to pay a sum of Rs. 3,32,504/- after allowing a rebate of 10% on the balance principal amount against which he had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- leaving the balance of Rs. 46,504/-. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 52,500/- i.e. the balance amount and interest on the balance amount with forwarding letter dated 29.11.1999. This clearly shows that the complainant was required to pay a further sum towards the balance amount to the O.P.-PUDA when the new policy had been enforced. In this view of the matter, we find that the District Forum rightly held that under the new policy, the interest of Rs. 5,996/- stood waived off. The District Forum has allowed the complaint partly and issued a direction for refund of Rs. 5,996/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 29.11.1999 and also awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation.

As regards the appeal filed by the complainant, the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the District Forum failed to consider that the whole amount of Rs. 52,500/- deposited on 29.11.1998 denoted the amount of interest only and the amount of Rs. 14,776/- against the amount deposited by the appellant was also in the shape of interest and in this manner, the respondents had over-charged the appellant by Rs. 67,276/-. However, the District Forum has allowed the refund of a sum of Rs. 5,996/-. We have already referred to in the earlier part of our order while dealing with the appeal of O.P.-PUDA that there was no excess amount deposited by the complainant of a sum of Rs. 14,776/-. We referred to above the finding of the District Forum which according to us has rightly been recorded that the O.Ps. had, as per the revised policy, waived the interest which was to the tune of Rs. 5,996/-. There is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the total amount of interest should be treated as Rs. 67,276/- comprising of Rs. 52,504/- deposited by the appellant towards interest plus the alleged excess amount of Rs. 14,776/-. The policy which was revised permitted the waiver of the interest to such allottees who were defaulters on the date of commencement of the policy and not to other persons who were not defaulters on such date. The finding of the District Forum in this regard is to be found in Para 8 of the impugned order which, inter alia, reads as under : ".......It is also stated by him that Rs. 14,776/- had been paid as excess by him. However, it is explained by the O.P. that after payment of Rs. 2,86,000/-, Rs. 46,504/- were still due from the complainant as on 30.4.1999. He was required to deposit this amount on 30.4.1999. He was informed by the letter No. 5989 dated 10.8.1999 of O.P. 3 that this amount was due from him and that he should pay it with interest. He paid it with interest calculating Rs. 5,996/- as interest and remitted the total amount of Rs. 52,500/- to the O.P. 3 vide his covering letter dated 29.11.1999..."

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the complainant lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

IN our considered opinion, the rate of interest is in consonance with the rate of interest which has been provided for by the Reserve Bank of INdia and no interference is called for in the impugned order. Since the complainant has been allowed interest, no further amount of compensation is required to be awarded to the complainant. Consequently, both the appeals lack merit and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeals dismissed.