PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. INDERJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA), Chandigarh and Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana arrayed as O. Ps. in Complaint Case No.42 of 2002 against order dated 16.2.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] vide which the complaint was allowed to the extent that a compensation for a sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant on account of inordinate delay from 19.9.1999 to 2.5.2000 and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation was awarded to the complainant and the O. Ps. were directed to pay the same to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The facts lie in a narrow campus :

(2.) Undisputedly the respondent Smt. Inderjit Kaur wife of S. Manjit Singh Gulati resident of H. No.420, Phase I, Mohali approached the O. P.- Estate Office, PUDA, Ludhiana for allotment of MIG flat, which was valued at Rs.5,72,000/-. Smt. Inderjit Kaur was allotted the flat vide letter of allotment bearing No.340-MIG (s), Super Sector 70, Mohali/1630 dated 7.4.1998. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- initially in September 1997 and paid another amount in June 1998 of a sum of Rs.85,815/-. These payments were made as per the terms and conditions embodied in the letter of allotment. The complainant till June 1998 paid a total sum of Rs.1,45,815/-. On 19.2.1999, Smt. Inderjit Kaur made a written request to the Estate Office, PUDA, Ludhiana for refund of money deposited by her as she was not interested in purchasing the aforesaid flat. This matter was dealt with by the O. Ps. who allowed the request of the complainant and delivered a cheque of Rs.92,795/- after deducting 10% of the total sale consideration of the flat. The complainant received the said cheque for a sum of Rs.92,795/- under protest. She made a representation to the appellants that in the case of another allottee namely Smt. Tripta who had been allotted Flat No. MIG (s), Super Sector 70, Mohali - 236, the appellants- PUDA had refunded the amount deposited by her after deducting an amount equal to 5% of the sale consideration. The complainant alleged that the appellants/o. Ps. discriminated her in no justifiable reason and their decision to deduct 10% of the total sale consideration was arbitrary and it amounted to deficiency in service. Moreover, the decision was taken by the appellants/o. Ps. belatedly and the matter was kept pending from 19.9.1999 to 2.5.2000. The District Forum held that this delay also amounted to serious deficiency in service.

(3.) The defence taken before the District Forum by the O. Ps. /appellants was that it was the complainant herself who did not comply with the letters sent by PUDA on 2.5.2000 and 17.7.2000 and did not furnish the requisite information particularly regarding raising of any loan from HDFC Bank by hypothecating the flat allotted to her. The complainant herself delayed the furnishing of the information needed and also in returning letter of allotment and letter of possession of the aforesaid flat. Apart from it, it was contended that since the O. Ps. were entitled to deduct from the amount deposited by the allottee on his/her withdrawal from the same, not exceeding 10% of the total sale consideratin, hence the discretion exercised by the appellants could not be tested and held arbitrary or discriminatory in the light of the case of Smt. Tripta to whom Flat No. MIG - 263 was allotted and on her withdrawal from taking the flat, deduction was made of a sum of 5% of the total sale consideration.