Punjab Urban Planning And Development Authority, Now Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs VIJAY KUMARI

THE case of the complainant Smt. Vijay Kumari is this. She was allotted a plot No. 57-C, Sector 69, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar out of the then Chief Minister ''s quota. She paid amount in the sum of Rs. 1,75,000 and Rs. 35,680 on 15.4.1996 and 30.4.1996 respectively. In the meantime, the Apex Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 26 of 1995 found that the procedure outlined by the Hon ''ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India, was not followed while allotting the aforesaid plot to the complainant and others. Consequently, the OP, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of allotment of the plot to the complainant. Pursuant to the show-cause notice, the plot was cancelled on 22.11.1996.

THEREAFTER , the complainant made a representation, which was considered and the allotment of the plot was restored on 12.6.2003 and rescheduling of payment of instalments was made. The instalments were payable on 12.6.2004, 12.6.2004, 12.6.2005, 12.6.2006, 12.6.2007, 12.6.2008 and 12.6.2009. Complainant accordingly deposited all the instalments except the last instalment. On 27.3.2009, she raised the objection. However, on 17.6.2003, the complainant got the possession of the plot and the occupation certificate was obtained on 3.6.2006. The complainant also got the No Due Certificate and the Conveyance Deed was executed in her favour on 27.3.2009.

THE complainant issued a notice dated 6.2.2010 regarding the payment of interest in the sum of Rs. 2,10,680. It was explained that the allotment of the plot was cancelled on 22.11.1996. The complainant had deposited total earnest money in the sum of Rs. 2,10,680. The said amount was offered to the complainant but she refused to accept the same. The complainant was duly informed by the OPs vide letter dated 18.12.1996 that no interest would be paid on the refund cheque. She was, however, given option to obtain the cheque from the office of petitioner. The petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum in May, 2010. The District Forum vide order dated 9.7.2010 partly allowed the said complaint and directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 1,24,458 being interest from 21.11.1996 to 12.3.2003 on the amount of Rs. 2,10,680 at the rate of 9% p.a. and also costs of litigation to the tune of Rs. 2,000.

BOTH the parties filed separate appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeals vide order dated 11.8.2012 Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner at length. It was argued that the complainant was clearly, specifically and unequivocally informed, while the letter sent by the OPs dated 18.12.1996 that she would not get any interest because of the cancellation of her plot. The complainant kept the money with the OPs at her own peril. She was specifically given option to collect the cheque from the Office of the OPs. She is estopped from claiming the interest and therefore no liability can be fastened upon the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also argued that the case is barred by time.

THESE submissions lack conviction. It is clear that a sum of Rs. 2,10,680 was used by the OPs/petitioners. The complainant did not have any other option. She chose not to accept that amount back, otherwise her right to the said plot would have diminished and she also could not have challenged the cancellation of the allotment, which was previously granted in her favour. The OPs are part of the Government, who should have taken a sympathetic view in this regard. They did not act like prudent men. They should have either deposited the said amount in FDR so that the interest in respect of that amount should have gone to the complainant or if they were to use that amount for their own purposes in that event too, they are liable to pay its interest to the complainant as they pay to the bank on the loans obtained by them every now and then. It must be borne in mind that the spirit of this benevolent legislation i.e. the Consumer Protection Act should not be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The Consumer Protection Act is intended to protect a large body of the consumer from exploitation. The petitioners want to have benefit of both the worlds which cannot be granted.

MOREOVER , this is a continuing cause of action. The Conveyance Deed was executed on 27.3.2009. The last instalment was to be paid on 27.3.2009. Consequently, this case is within time. The State Commission has also placed reliance on an authority reported in Manju Kothari v. Dilip Sikandar and Another, III (2005) CPJ 200, wherein it was held that cause of action should be taken as continuing concept and in that case this complaint .cannot be said to be barred by time. Government is bound to pay the interest to the complainant despite the fact that it had warned her that no interest would be paid. The fact remains that in spite of the warning, the money was utilized by the petitioners. No evidence to the contrary is forthcoming. The revision petition is meritless and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.