SUNIL UPPAL Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I , U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter for short to be referred as District Consumer Forum) dated 2.5.2008 in complaint case No. 51 of 2007; Sunil Uppal and Another v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainants is that they had purchased SCO Site No. 910, Pocket No. 6, Manimajra, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 1,22,00,000 in an open auction on 23.01.2002 on free hold basis and paid 10% of the bid amount at the fall of hammer and the remaining 15% amount was also paid on 18.2.2002 and thus a total amount of Rs. 30,50,000 constituting 25% of the total amount had been paid as per the terms and conditions of auction. Allotment letter dated 22.4.2002 was issued in favour of the complainants. It is the case of complainants that after having received 25% of the amount it was incumbent on the part of the OP to hand over the vacant physical possession of the SCO site within a period of 30 days but it offered the possession on 24.5.2002. Immediately after getting the possession, complainants approached the OP to obtain building plans (control sheet) but they were informed that the same were not ready. However, on the insistence of complainants to accept the fees for issuance of building plans (control sheet), OP flatly refused to do so. It was only on 6.6.2002 that the complainants finally succeeded in depositing the fee but the OP again took about one more month and issued the same in the end of June, 2002. Thereafter complainants submitted the building plans in the first week of July, 2002 but OP took around two months in sanctioning the same which was done in the last week of August, 2002. After approval of building plans when complainants started digging the ground for the purpose of construction, it was discovered that the site had telephone cables laid underneath and therefore complainants were forced to stop the construction. OP was informed about the said cables and on 18.9.2002 complainants sent notice to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and vide reply dated 18.10.2003 OP informed the complainants that BSNL had been asked to remove the cables and complainants were also informed that OP was not responsible for removal of the same. It is further stated by complainants that OP sent notice under Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 and asked the complainants to deposit a sum of Rs. 36,79,350 on account of first instalment in terms of the allotment letter, without owning their responsibility for removing the cables aforesaid. Further vide notice dated 21.2.2003 complainants had been asked to deposit the entire amount of the first instalment, whereas complainants had already made part payment of Rs. 20,00,000 even though complainants were not bound to make such payment as unencumbered possession of the plot had not been delivered. It is further stated by the complainants that the telephone cables were ultimately removed from the site in January, 2003 and therefore as per terms and conditions the complainants were not liable to make payment of the instalments till January, 2003 as the first instal was to fall due on 23.1.2004 instead of 23.1.2003 in view of late delivery of unencumbered possession of the plot. However, OP threatened the complainants with another notice dated 13.11.2003 to make the entire payment including the interest withheld by the complainants amounting to Rs. 6,29,350. Complainants had in fact earlier approached the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) U.T. Chandigarh through their Complaint/Application No. 56 of 2003 and the complaint/application was decided in favour of the complainants on 19.3.2004. The Lok Adalat had ordered for charging of interest for 25 months instead of 36 months and had further ordered due credit to the complainants of the excess amount which they had deposited towards instalments. This award of the Lok Adalat had been challenged by OP through CWP No. 12039 of 2004 which was allowed vide order dated 25.4.2006 and the Award dated 19.3.2004 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was set aside. The complainants approached the Hon ble High Court by way of Writ Petition for intervening into the matter and the Hon ble High Court again gave liberty to avail remedy as granted vide its order dated 25.4.2006 and disposed of the Petition as pre -mature vide order dated 7.8.2006 while averring that the payment could only be claimed from the allottees when they were able to exercise their right to enjoy the property and there should be no obstruction in such way and the Administration was duty -bound to remove any encroachment or encumbrance on the site. It is the case of complainants that they were entitled for interest for one year from 23.1.2003 to 23.1.2004 and further they were entitled for the waiver of interest calculated for the entire 36 months instead of 24 months on the whole premium and also the refund of interest charged on account of non -payment of instalment amounting to Rs. 1,64,000 during intervening period of 23.1.2003 to 23.1.2004 which was paid by the Complainants in order to save resumption during the pendency of their complaint before the Lok Adalat. It is further the case of complainants that the entire amount had been paid in three years with effect from 23.1.2003 instead of 23.1.2004 as the period of payment of instalments starts one year after the date of delivery of the actual physical possession. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complaint had been filed.

(3.) IN response, the case of OP is that the possession of the site was taken by the complainants on 24.5.2002 and the building plan was sanctioned in August 2002 and the construction was started in September 2002 without getting the demarcation of the site. It has been submitted that as a matter of routine, the building plan was sanctioned and control sheet was provided to the complainants without any abnormal delay. As regards telephone cable line laid underneath the site, the same had been denied by OP. However, as per OP, on the asking of complainants, OP had taken up the matter with the BSNL who had given undertaking that the same would be removed shortly and ultimately the cables were removed by the BSNL in January 2003 just within three months of the reporting of the matter. It is further case of OP that the complainants had defaulted in making the payment of instalments in terms of the allotment letter and therefore proceedings under Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 had to be initiated. It is categorical case of OP that the payment of instalments could not be deferred on account of existence of cables for which the complainants were required to take up the matter with BSNL. Stating that there was no deficiency in service on their part, OP had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.