PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs LAHMBER SINGH

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum. 1. Brief facts necessary to appreciate the case are that the respondent/complainant was allotted an H.I.G. dwelling unit on Hire Purchase basis for which part of amount was already paid by the complainant. Complainant had two options either to pay in instalments or to pay the whole amount, ''lump sum'' within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter and get 10% rebate on the total cost. The case of the complainant is that since the allotment letter carried no date for purposes of time limit of 60 days to start - he obtained loan/P.F. advance and made the payment within 60 days of the revised dates communicated to him. The petitioner calculated it otherwise and imposed excess charge of Rs. 39,218/- and interest of Rs. 1,640/- which the complainant found unjustified. It is in these circumstances, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,500/-. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission hence this revision petition.

WE heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that original letter of allotment bore no date yet on clarification being sought by the complainant, the petitioner clarified the position vide its letter dated 31.3.1998 which stated : "In the allotment letter issued vide number mentioned above the word date of receipt may please be read as date of issue."

As held by both the lower Forums, admittedly the original letter was received during the 3rd week of February let us presume this to be 21.2.1998, i.e., the last day of the third week of February. Counting 60 days from this date, the date stipulated in Para 7(2) of this letter expired on 21.4.1998.

Admittedly the payment was made on 14.5.1998, i.e., after expiry of 60 days. We find it very difficult to accept the plea of the complainant that he could not obtain non-refundable withdrawal from its employer, the Bank, as date of issue of allotment letter by the petitioner was not mentioned in the letter of allotment. We have seen this letter from the Bank, very carefully and have to observe that nothing could be far from the truth. Bank did not approve the advance/grant on account of 15 reasons, spelled out in the letter dated 24.3.1998. It is only the 16th point which speaks of letter of allotment without date. The alibi that this lacuna was the sole cause of delay in grant of advance is not supported by the material on record. Admittedly there has been a delay in payment of the whole amount within 60 days as stipulated, from the revised date, as discussed earlier. For any delay, fault must be with the complainant. No case of any deficiency has been made out against the petitioner. In our view the case not been properly appreciated by both the lower Forums. We are unable to sustain the orders passed by District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, which are set aside. Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition allowed.