NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GAINDI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 25.7.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was allotted by the respondent-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) plot bearing No. D-278 (P) measuring 2500 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.385/- per square yard and the complainant had paid Rs.87,500/- as 10% of the price of the earnest money and Rs.2,97,500/- within 30 days of the allotment of the plot. It is also an admitted fact that the balance 60% price of the plot was to be paid either in lumpsum within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter without interest or in half-yearly equated instalments with a normal interest, which was to be compounded on half-yearly basis. The complainant had pleaded that she had paid the full price. Ex. P-23 has been placed on the file giving the details of the payment of the amounts paid through various receipts. Payments are also not disputed by the opposite parties. The main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party was not competent to enhance the price of the plot from Rs.385/- to Rs.596/- per sq. yard. It is not disputed that the sale price of the plots in the area in which the plot was allotted to the complainant has been increased due to increase in the cost and due to the order of the Hon'ble High Court in a writ petition. The complainant has not denied that the price of all the plots in which her plot was situated had been enhanced. We think the District Forum has rightly decided that the complainant could not complain about the increase of the plot in question due to the factual position mentioned above.

(3.) It remains undisputed that as per terms of allotment of the plot to the complainant she could get the possession within 90 days after the payment of 30% of the amount of the plot. It is also an admitted fact that the physical possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant since site office of the P. S. I. E. C, was built at the plot. The said fact is not disputed even by the opposite parties. A number of letters of the opposite parties are there on the file which indicate that the site office was there and as such the physical possession could not be delivered to the complainant. District Forum has rightly said that when the opposite party was not in a position to deliver the actual possession of allotment of the plot then getting the price deposited from the complainant was not justified. It amounted to clear deficiency in service. The complainant had written a number of letters to the opposite parties for getting the possession and the actual possession was not handed over to the complainant. Opposite party ultimately realized its mistake and admitted its fault and issued a letter Ex. P-18 to the complainant claiming the extra amount. Letter Ex. P-17 shows that even upto 21.1.1999 the plot was under the possession of the opposite parties. The opposite parties even wrote letter Ex. P-19 to the complainant vide which the allotment of plot No. D-278 (P) was changed from 17.7.1996 to 31.3.1999 for all intents and purposes and the adjustment of the initial amount of 40% was made towards the additional cost of the plot and the amount of Rs.1, 34, 361/- was still due towards the balance additional cost in addition to that other amounts were also due. It means that the opposite party, itself had changed the letter of appointment. The opposite party changed the date of allotment from 17.7.1996 to 31.3.1999. The complainant had made most of the payments upto 3.7.1999. As per Ex. P-23 the earliest payment was made on 3.7.1996. This amount remained with the opposite party. The opposite party later on enhanced the price to Rs.596/- per square yard. The total price of the disputed plot the area of which is admitted as 2645 sq. yards comes of Rs.15,76,420/-. The complainant had made payment of Rs.10,18,612/-. The said amount related to deposit with the opposite party including initial deposit. The opposite party had changed the date of allotment vide letter Ex. P-19, which is letter dated 1.6.2000. It shows that the opposite party had changed the alloment only on 1.6.2000. After repeated requests of the complainant she was told about the payment due. After the change of date of allotment the payment was rescheduled. The complainant was to make the payment as per schedule but the complainant did not make the payment. As such the liability of the complainant was there to pay the interest. The fact remains that the amount paid by the complainant already remained deposited with the opposite party for a number of years without any benefit to her. In these circumstances, the District Forum has rightly held that it was desirable that the complainant should be allowed to make the payment of balance of amount after adjusting the amount already paid without any interest and that the complainant would be compensated since she will not have to pay interest and penal interest due to delayed payment as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is writ large in receiving the payment and not delivering the actual possession of the plot to the complainant. We do not find any fault with the order of the District Forum that the total price of plot comes to Rs.15,76,420/-. The complainant had already made a payment of Rs.10,18,612/-. After deducting the payments the complainant was still liable to pay Rs.5,57,908/-. The District Forum found it desirable that two months' time should be given to the complainant to make the payment without interest, failing which the liability of the complainant was there to make the payment with interest. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum or in any of the directions given by the District Forum in its order. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.