KAILASH KAUR vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, PUDA

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Execution Application No. 4/2008 in Consumer Complaint No. 13/2002 Kailash Kaur Vs. Chief Administrator, PUDA by which, Execution application was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/appellant purchased Plot No. 386, Sector 71, SAS Nagar (Mohali) measuring 500 sq. yards in open auction on 27.3.2000 from OP / respondent for a sum of Rs.20,21,000/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission and learned State Commission vide order dated 28.7.2003 allowed complaint and directed OP as under: "In these circumstances, we direct the opposite party to remove the deficiency in service by providing basic amenities as mentioned in the complaint to the complainant and to re -allocate the three years'' period of time of construction from the date the basic amenities are provided and the area is developed properly; and to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of Rs.21,77,100/ - from 18.6.2001 the date of final deposit of the full price of the plot till the basic amenities are provided to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/ - as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. suffered by the complainant and also due to the escalation in cost of construction of building material etc. Opposite party shall also pay the costs of the litigation to the complainant, which are quantified as Rs.2,000/ -. This complaint is, thus, allowed."

In appeal filed by OP, this Commission vide order dated 26.11.2007 allowed appeal partly as under: " We feel that in terms of the judgment in GDA vs. Balbir Singh, 2004 5 SCC 65 and the observations, the complainant is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the various amounts deposited from the dates of respective deposits and not from 18th June, 2001 till the date of delivery of possession."

SLP filed by OP was dismissed by Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.11.2007, but before that complainant filed Execution application before State Commission on 9.4.2008 and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed Execution application as decree stood complied with against which, this appeal has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that only symbolic possession of plot was given on 7.6.2001, but actual possession was given on 30.9.2009 and in such circumstances, appellant was entitled to interest upto 30.9.2009, but learned State Commission committed error in holding that possession was given on 7.6.2001 and dismissing Execution application, hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

THE core question to be decided in this appeal is whether possession was given to the complainant on 7.6.2001 or on 30.9.2009.

PERUSAL of record reveals that appellant herself had given duly signed certificate of having taken possession on 7.6.2001. Learned State Commission rightly observed that appellant is estopped from alleging that he got actual possession on 19.1.2005, as she had already taken possession of plot on 7.6.2001.

IN the memo of appeal and during the course of arguments learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that actual possession was taken on 30.9.2009 as per demarcation certificate. This arguments is contrary to the arguments advanced before State Commission as Counsel for the appellant argued before State Commission that he was entitled to interest upto 19.1.2005 on which date possession was given. Merely because demarcation certificate was prepared on 30.9.2009, it cannot be said that possession was given to the appellant on 30.9.2009, whereas possession had already been given on 7.6.2001.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per local Commissioner''s report dated 19.1.2005, basic facilities were not available. Perusal of Commissioner''s report reveals that sewerage line was already upto the disputed plot and fresh water line pipe was also extended upto half of the front of the adjacent plot to the plot in question. Road was also available upto the plot. Commissioner also observed that amenities like water as well as approached metaled road are still not properly provided to the plot no. 386, but he has nowhere referred that these facilities were not provided at all. Learned State Commission in the impugned order rightly observed as under: 19. Moreover in Amarjit Singh''s case (para 22), it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as under: - "22. In this case, having regard to the provisions in the leasehold Rules and contractual terms (as contained in the General terms and conditions of auction lease and the letter of confirmation of lease cum offer of possession), the following position is evident: (i) . (ii) . (iii) . (iv) The lessee will not be liable to pay interest on the premium instalments or the rent till the actual and physical possession of the site is delivered or offered to be delivered to the lessee (whichever date is earlier)."

Therefore if the delivery of possession is seen in the context of the para reproduced above, even then it would mean that the possession was delivered to Decree Holder by the Judgement Debtor on 7.6.2001.

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs.