PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. S GURJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 65 revision petitions filed by Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and its Estate Officer, petitioners raise common issues and, therefore, we propose to decide them by this common order. These revisions arise out of two orders dated 29.4.2003 and 5.6.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh. By the order dated 29.4.2003, State Commission allowed 42 appeals filed against the order dated 23.12.2002 of a District Forum whereby 76 complaints were dismissed. State Commission allowed 23 appeals filed against the order dated 4.2.2003 of a District Forum dismissing 49 complaints by the order dated 5.6.2003.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 floated a scheme for allotment of 784 four-storeyed MIG (S) flats situated at Sector No. 70, Mohali. Scheme was to close on 14.9.1996. Tentative price of each flat was fixed at Rs. 6,30,000/- lakhs which was to be revised subject to enhancement/decrease in cost of construction. On being allotted specific flats, in the demand letters, the final price was determined as 7,60,000/- per flat. On making payment of this amount, the allottees were handed over possession of respective flats by the petitioners. Thereafter complaints were filed by the regional allottees/transferees seeking refund of the amount paid over and above the said tentative price, interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amounts for delay in delivering possession of the flats and cost. Complaints were resisted by filing written versions by the petitioners on a variety of grounds which need not be reiterated for deciding these revision petitions including that of limitation. In terms of above said orders dated 29.4.2003 and 5.6.2003, the State Commission directed petitioner No. 1 - Authority to charge amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- i.e., the advertised price, pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay in handing over possession of flats and refund the excess amount charged with cost.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar, Mrs. C.K. Sucharita and Shri Atul Nanda for petitioners in three batches of revision petitions was mainly two-fold. First, all the complaints out of which these revision petitions arise except complaint case No. 537 of 2002 filed by Iqbal Singh, were instituted much beyond of two years of the accrual of cause of action and no applications under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) seeking condonation of delay in question were filed. Plea of complaints being barred by time was specifically raised in the written versions filed by the petitioners. District Forum, however, condoned delay on the oral prayer made during the course of arguments and that too on insufficient ground. While opposing appeals, plea of limitation was also raised by the Counsels of the petitioners before State Commission but the Commission did not consider that plea while passing aforesaid orders dated 29.4.2003 and 5.6.2003. In support of such a plea having not been raised in appeals, petitioner No. 1- Authority has filed two affidavits of Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate and one of Mr. G.S. Arshi all dated 6.8.2004. Second, the State Commission acted erroneously in directing petitioner No. 1 to charge only amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- (tentative price) against the final price of 7,60,000/- per flat without considering the ratio particularly in the decisions in Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors., v. D.D.A & Ors., 1980 2 SCR 704; Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. v. Ajay Pal Singh & Ors., 1989 2 SCC 116 and D.D.A. v. Pushpinder Kumar Jain, 1994 Suppl. 3 SCC 494. While controverting the said submission, Mr. V.S. Virk and Mr. M.S. Rane for respondents supported the aforesaid two orders of the District Forum in condoning delay in filing complaints and the orders passed by State Commission allowing the appeals.