BATHINDA DEVELOPMENT Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) This Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to the Act), has been filed by Bathinda Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BDA) and its Estate Officer, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dtd. 14/3/2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 137 of 2014. By the Impugned Order, while accepting the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, the State Commission has modified the Order dtd. 29/11/2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 210 of 16/5/2013, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein. By the said Order, while accepting the Complaint, the District Commission had directed the Petitioners to jointly and severally refund the remaining deposited amount to the Complainant/Respondent against plots No. 234 and 235, after deducting 2% charges, along with interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.18,45,106.00 w.e.f. 19/7/2009 till the date of payment, i.e. 12/3/2012, as also Rs.10,000.00 as compensation and costs. However, by the Impugned Order, the State Commission has modified the Order passed by the District Commission, inasmuch as it has held that the Petitioners herein are entitled to deduct 5% out of the amount deposited towards forfeiture with regard to the plots in question.

(3.) The facts in brief, leading to the filing of the present Revision Petition, are that in pursuance of an Advertisement, issued by the Petitioners to the effect that auction of shops, SCF and residential plots in Phase-II, Model Town, Bathinda, would be held on 16/7/2008, the Complainant/Respondent, who intended to purchase plots for personal use of her family, participated in the auction. In the auction, she was the highest bidder and, accordingly, plots no. 234 and 235 were allotted to her, upon which she deposited sums of Rs.5,00,000.00 and Rs.5,15,000.00, being 10% of the total cost of the plots, with the Petitioners on the said date. Further sums of Rs.7,47,000.00 and Rs.7,73,000.00, being 15% of the price of the plots, were also deposited by the Complainant/Respondent on 21/10/2008. Thereafter, the Complainant/ Respondent incurred huge amount on the treatment of her mother-in-law, on account of which her financial position deteriorated and on 26/3/2009 she preferred an Application, seeking refund of the amount deposited, before Opposite Party/Petitioner No.2 herein, the Estate Officer of BDA. Despite repeated requests of the Complainant/Respondent, who was in dire need of money for treatment of her mother-in-law, for refund of the deposited amount along with interest, no action was taken by the Petitioners in the matter. Subsequently, on 13/9/2011, the Estate Officer ordered for refunding the amount deposited by the Complainant/Respondent, after deducting/forfeiting 10% of the total consideration, and interest thereon. Aggrieved with the same, the Complainant/Respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Administrator of BDA on 14/9/2011. Vide its order dtd. 17/10/2011, the said Authority reduced the forfeiture amount from 10% to 5%. Accordingly, vide cheques dtd. 12/3/2012, sums of Rs.9,03,655.00 and Rs.9,41,441.00 were refunded to the Complainant/Respondent, after deducting 5% forfeiture amount. While accepting the said payments made by the Petitioners, under protest, the Complainant/Respondent again approached them with the request to pay the total deposited amount with interest but of no avail. In response to some RTI queries, the Complainant/Respondent came to know that vide their order dtd. 19/6/2009, the Petitioners had ordered for refund of the deposited amount after forfeiting 2% of the total consideration. However, the Petitioners refunded the deposited amount after deduction of 5% forfeiture amount in terms of order dtd. 17/10/2011. Hence, the afore-noted Complaint, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioners on the aforesaid counts, came to be filed before the District Commission, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.