URBAN IMPROVEMENT CO PVT LTD vs RAJIV GUPTA

VIDE impugned order dated 2. 1. 2008, passed by the District Forum, the appellant company has been directed to refund Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent and also to pay Rs. 50,000 for illegally withholding the security amount and subjecting the respondent to mental agony and undue hardship besides Rs. 1 0,000 as cost of litigation.

FEELING aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. Allegation of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief were that M/s. Vipul Real Estate P. Ltd. was a broker/agent of the company M/s. Urban Improvement Trust and the respondent approached their office in Faridabad for the purchase of plot No. 1151 B, Green Field Colony. The agent introduced the respondent with the appellant and obtained the agreement. Conveyance deed dated 30. 10. 2003 was prepared. The appellant compelled the respondent to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 as security deposit vide letter dated 22. 9. 2003. The respondent had paid full payment of the plot but still security was taken on the ground that after completing the roof slab they would refund security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000. After the conveyance deed respondent had applied for approval of the site plan for the plot. After completing formalities the plan was approved on 13. 12. 2004. In January 2005, the respondent had started removing the stones from his plot as use of machine for removing the stone was not permitted by the company. However, the respondent completed the roof slab on 10. 10. 2005 and then the respondent approached the appellant to refund the security amount but the same was not refunded.

In its defence the appellant took the plea that the respondent was to complete the construction of at least up to the roof slab on the plot by 16. 7. 2004. Appellant has alleged gross default on the part of the respondent who has rendered himself liable for forfeiture of his security deposit. Appellant therefore justified the forfeiture.

PERUSAL of the impugned order shows that the District Forum has though observed that the appellant should have filed the agreement signed by the respondent but even if an agreement which is not signed by the respondent and any agreement even if produced by the appellant, which is not signed by the respondent will not bind the respondent, still the District Forum has returned finding of fact that without the conveyance deed and no objection certificate, the respondent could not get the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad and the appellant was well aware that no site plan could be sanctioned without conveyance deed and no objection certificate and this clause has been added by the appellant with a view to find excuse to forfeit the security deposit. It further finds that when the plan was not approved before 13. 12. 2004, how could the respondent complete the construction and therefore held the withholding of the security amount as unjustified. Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the agreement which purported to bear the signatures of the owner of the appellant company as well as of the respondent and the relevant term pertains to schedule for construction and is as under: partb. Schedule for construction-Completion time 24 months. Total completion time 24 months whichever is earlier and the construction period of 24 months will be calculated from 17. 7. 2002, the date of principle agreement.

COUNSEL for the appellant has also referred to the application for seeking permission to erect the building made by the respondent to the District Town Planner, Faridabad, which was received by it on 23. 8. 2004. Admittedly the security amount was deposited vide receipt dated 22. 9. 2000. Letter dated 9. 5. 2003 sent by the appellant to the respondent is of great significance as it was through this letter the appellant undertook to refund the security amount to the respondent after completion of the roof slab of the plot. The letter reads as under: 9th May, 2003. GF/1151/2003/968 shri Rajiv Gupta, 59, Vigyan Lok, Delhi-92. Dear Sir, sub: Plot No. 1151 in Sector-B. Please refer to your letter dated 28th April, 2003. You are requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as security deposit which will be refunded after completion of roof slab on your plot. After receipt of security deposit company will execute conveyance deed in your favour. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Sanjeev Sharma)Asstt. Manager Vide letter dated 15. 10. 2005, the respondent informed the appellant about its having completed the roof slab and sought refund of the security amount as per condition of the agreement. In our view aforesaid document clearly shows that the appellant withheld the security amount illegally and unjustifiably. There was no indication of any kind in spite of having received letter dated 28. 4. 2003 sent by the respondent that the security amount will be liable to be forfeited if the roof slab on the plot is not completed or constructed by a particular date. To read this letter in the light of the above referred schedule of construction in the agreement was fully erroneous and incorrect. Sometimes the sanctioning authority takes inordinately long-time to sanction the plan without which no one can raise the construction on the plot or the site. District Town Planner, Faridabad took about four months in sanctioning the plan and without the plan having been sanctioned the respondent could not have started the construction.

SECURITY amount in such cases is such which a party is legally entitled to be refunded. No term of any such contract or agreement should be read in isolation. All the terms have to be taken into consideration together and their effect coupled with various communications exchanged between the parties. Thus without making it known to the respondent vide letter dated 9. 5. 2003 wherein the letter dated 28. 4. 2003 was mentioned that the amount of security shall be refunded after completion of roof slab, appellant was not entitled to forfeit the security.

OVERALL effect of the aforesaid document was that the appellant should have refunded the amount immediately on receipt of letter in the year 2005. Forcing a person or consumer to seek redressal of his grievance by approaching the Court or by resorting to legal remedy itself is cause of mental agony and harassment. Legal remedies are no longer cheaper. Litigation is becoming costly day-by-day and therefore to ask a consumer to seek refund of the security amount through Court which takes several years to adjudicate the matter is cause of compensating the person adequately. The word "compensation" appearing in Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been provided very wide connotation and meaning by the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=iii (2004) SLT 161= (2004) 5 SCC 65, which takes in its fold each and every element of suffering suffered by a consumer say mental agony, physical discomfort, emotional suffering, injustice and other sufferings suffered at the hands of service provider. The observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are quote worthy and are as under: "the word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law. "

We do not find any merit in the appeal as the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.