AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PUNJAB Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short ''PUDA'')-petitioner herein, who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short ''the District Forum'') has filed this Revision Petition against the Order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 548 of 2000. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has upheld the Order passed by the District Forum in Complaint No. 302 dated 30.6.1997.
SHORTLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the case are: Complainant/respondent was allotted plot'' No. 1044, admeasuring 400 square yards, by the respondent-Authority in Phase-II, Urban Estates, Patiala vide allotment letter dated 18.6.1985. As per Clause 5 of the Terms and Conditions of the allotment, Rs. 3,850 were payable by the allottee within 30 days of allotment in acceptance of the terms of allotment. As per Clause 8, the balance 75% of the purchase price was payable within 60 days without interest or in 4 six-monthly equated instalments along with interest @ 7% p.a. As per Clause 12, the building was required to be constructed by the respondent within 3 years of the allotment. As per Clause 16, the allotment was subject to furnishing of an Affidavit by the respondent as per the specimen attached to the allotment letter. The said allotment letter was subject to the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964. As per the averments made in the Complaint, on 5.3.1986, petitioner sent a letter, calling upon the respondent to complete the formalities as per the Terms and Conditions of Allotment, which was received by the respondent and, to which, he sent his reply on 18.6.1986, acknowledging the receipt of letter dated 5.6.1986. Respondent paid Rs. 3,850 required to be deposited as a token of acceptance of the Terms of Allotment and also filed an Affidavit as per the specimen attached to the allotment letter. That vide letter 13.10.1986, Estates Officer of the petitioner communicated the schedule of 4 six-monthly equated instalments to the respondent. That the respondent was issued a duplicate copy of allotment letter dated 18.6.1985 on 3.11.1992 and, in the meantime, he deposited different amounts on different dates as directed by the petitioner and even paid 7% interest on the instalments which were deposited late. But despite this, the petitioner demanded Rs. 44,021 as penal interest. Respondent protested against it taking the plea that the letter of allotment dated 18.6.1985 was never received by him. That he came to know about the allotment and the Terms of Allotment only on the receipt of duplicate letter of allotment on 3.11.1992. As his plea was not accepted, respondent filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking quashing of the notice of demand for Rs. 44,021 as penal interest. According to him, the penal interest could not be levied as the letter of allotment was never received by him and he came to know about the Terms of Allotment only on 3.11.1992 on receipt of the letter of allotment.
ON being served, petitioner-Authority filed the Written Statement and took the stand that allotment letter reached the respondent through the Postal Department, well in time and, as the respondent did not deposit the instalments in time, he was required to pay penal interest, for which a legal demand was raised. Thus, denying the allegations made in the Complaint, petitioner prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, allowed the Complaint and gave following directions: "In the light of the discussion above the complaint is allowed. The demand of penal interest made by the opposite parties is quashed. The complainant has submitted site plan for approval for the purposes of raising the construction on the plot. The opposite parties have not pleaded if the plan is not in accordance with rules or by laws. The opposite parties shall pass final orders of approval of the plan within one month from the receipt of copy of order. The complainant shall raise the construction required under rules within 6 months from the date of approval of the site plan. The complainant shall not be liable to pay non-construction fee from 1.7.1997 till the expiry of 6 months from the date of approval of the plan. In case the construction is not raised as required under rules within 6 months from the date of approval of plan, the complainant shall be liable to pay late construction fee for the subsequent period under rules. Because of the illegal demand raised by the opposite parties the complainant suffered harassment and mental agony. He had also been deprived of raising of construction on the plot and may have to incur expenses at higher cost for raising the construction. The complainant thus suffered loss and injury. He is awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000. The complainant shall also be paid costs of Rs. 500. The amount be remitted to the complainant by way of bank draft or crossed cheque within one month from the receipt of copy of order. Intimation be sent to the Counsel for the parties immediately. Copy of order be sent to the parties.
AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. It was held that Ex. R-7, photocopy of dispatch register, which denotes the dispatch number and date of sending of allotment letter, cannot be deemed to be a receipt of allotment letter by the respondent. That as per standard procedure, a receipt is given by the Post Office when a letter parcel is sent under postal certificate. No such receipt of Postal Department has been placed on record to prove the authenticity of the dispatch register.
AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner-Authority has filed the Revision Petition before this Commission, which was dismissed vide Order dated 19.9.1993 by observing as under: "After seeing the material on record we find that terms of allotment became applicable from the date of knowledge which in this case, as both the lower Courts have held to be 3.11.1992. Hence to take shelter that the Consumer Forums cannot go into the terms of allotment does not lead us anywhere. What has been directed by the Lower Forums is the application of the terms of the allotment effective 3.11.1992 and not from the date of dispatch of allotment letter which has not been found to be proved. Hence we see no merit in this plea of the Petitioner. Similarly we also find that it is not a question of effecting the terms of allotment, there is no dispute that the parties will be governed by the allotment. It is the date of its application which is material in the instant case. As already observed by both the lower Forums, the duplicate letter was issued only on 3.11.1992. Applicability of the Terms would have prospective and not retrospective application. In our view the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission does not call for any interference. The Revision Petition is devoid of merit-hence dismissed. No order as to costs."
AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by this Commission, petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 6921 of 2001 before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. The Civil Appeal was allowed, Order passed by this Commission was set aside and the case was remanded back to this Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Supreme Court, in its Order, observed as under: "We have carefully perused the impugned order of the National Forum. In the impugned order, there is no reference to the subsequent letter dated 5.3.1986 issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab, Chandigarh (Annexure P-2) which was admittedly received by the complainant-respondent (Annexure P-3) and replied vide his letter dated 18.6.1986. It may be noted that in his letter dated 18.8.1986 the complainant specifically mentioned that he had made payment of Rs. 3,850 through a demand draft which is the amount mentioned in para 5 of the allotment letter. These and other facts have not been considered by the National Commission. Hence, in our opinion, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the National Forum. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the National Commission and remand the matter to the National Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously, after hearing the parties concerned. No costs. All questions of fact and law are open to be raised before the National Commission."
THE stand taken before the Supreme Court by the petitioner-Authority was that the petitioner had sent letter dated 5.3.1986 to the respondent which was admittedly received by the respondent to which he had sent a reply to the petitioner on 18.6.1986, which shows that the petitioner came to know about the allotment on receipt of the subsequent letter dated 5.3.1986. Taking note of the submission, Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court remanded the case back to this Commission to pass a fresh Order taking into consideration the letter of the petitioner-Authority dated 5.3.1986, which had admittedly been received by the respondent.
COUNSEL for the petitioner-Authority as well as the respondent, who is appearing In-Person, have been heard at length.
IN the letter dated 5.3.1986, respondent was informed that he had failed to complete the formalities in Terms of the Allotment dated 18.6.1985. He was directed to complete the formalities within 15 days of the receipt of the letter, failing which, action for cancellation of allotment/exemption, shall be taken. Respondent replied to the above-said letter dated 5.3.1986 sent by the petitioner-Authority on 18.6.1986, contents of which are reproduced below: "Although, neither your letter No. C-4 (P-4044)6027 dated 18.6.1985 was received by me nor the reply of my letter dated 20.3.1986 sent to you under registered cover in responce to your letter No. C-4 (P-4044)6027 dated 5.3.1986 has been received as yet, a sum of Rs. 3,850-00 through a demand draft No. TT/A/862733 dated 17.6.1986 (sic) from State Bank of Patiala, Model Town, Patiala drawn in your favour on State Bank of Patiala (sic) Branch, Chandigarh of Estate Officer Urban Estate, Punjab along with an affidavit on the requisite performa based on information collected personally from your office is attach herewith for the allotment of 1 No. plot of 400 sq. yards at Urban Estate Phase II, Patiala. It is not requested that allotment letter for the said plot may kindly be issued at the earliest."
RESPONDENT does not dispute the receipt of letter dated 5.3.1986 and the letter written by him on 18.6.1986.
A perusal of the two letters, clearly shows that the respondent came to know about the allotment on receipt of letter dated 5.3.1986 sent by the petitioner-Authority to the respondent. In his letter dated 18.6.1986, respondent has written that he visited the office of the petitioner-Authority from where he collected all the information about the allotment. That he was sending a demand draft of Rs. 3,850 along with an affidavit in the prescribed proforma for the allotment of plot admeasuring 400 square yards at Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala. The requirement of filing of an affidavit, as per Clauses 16/17, and the requirement of sending demand draft of Rs. 3,850, as per Clause 5 of the Terms of Allotment, were mentioned in the letter dated 18.6.1985 sent by the petitioner-Authority. This information was collected by the respondent when he visited the Office of the petitioner-Authority. Requirement of deposit of Rs. 3,850 and the filing of the affidavit, was mentioned only in the letter of allotment. Respondent had sent the affidavit and the draft of Rs. 3,850, which shows that the petitioner had collected the information regarding the allotment of plot after visiting the office of the petitioner-Authority. It can safely be presumed that the respondent got the information regarding the allotment of the plot and requirement of deposit of the balance amount of 75% in 4 equal instalments in the year 1986 and the stand taken by the respondent that he got the knowledge of allotment of plot on receipt of the duplicate copy of letter of allotment on 3.11.1992, being an afterthought, cannot be accepted.
THE Fora below have erred in holding that the respondent came to know about the allotment of plot, for the first time, on receipt of the duplicate copy of the letter of allotment on 3.11.1992. The letter dated 5.3.1986 sent by the petitioner-Authority to the respondent and the reply sent by the respondent to the same vide letter dated 18.6.1986 clearly shows that the petitioner had acquired the knowledge of allotment of the plot in the year 1986 and not 3.11.1992.
FOR the reasons stated above, the Orders passed by the Fora below cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set aside. The Revision Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Respondent is given 8 weeks to deposit the penal interest as per the demand created by the petitioner-Authority. Revision Petition allowed.