L R BUDANIYA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 4.4.05 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT, Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order dated 15.9.2004 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed. The State Commission directed the petitioner authority to charge price of a plot of 500 sq. yards @ Rs. 1,800 instead of Rs. 3,600 per sq. yard from the respondent and to pay him Rs. 75,000 towards compensation.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. One Gurdial Singh had applied for allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards at Mohali on 31.1.1984 and the application made by him was registered at Sl. No. 170. In the year 1992, Department of Housing and Urban Development was merged with the Punjab Housing Development Board. In 1993-94 the Board introduced a scheme permitting the original applicants to transfer their pending applications to new persons by paying transfer fee. On 18.6.1994 said Gurdial Singh sent a letter to the petitioner/opposite party for transferring the registration in the name of the respondent/complainant. Respondent alleged that as no action was taken on pending application, Gurdial Singh made another application and on 31.1.1997 he appeared before the Additional Chief Administrator (M) and after considering the application and documents filed in support thereto the said authority ordered transfer of the above registration number in favour of the respondent. Thereafter respondent was issued allotment letter of the plot on 6.3.2000 at the revised rate of Rs. 3,600 per sq. yard which became effective w.e.f. 20.3.1997. Respondent alleged that the rate charged has to be Rs. 1,800 per sq. yard. Complaint filed by the respondent for that relief was contested by the petitioner authority. It was not denied that Gurdial Singh had applied for a plot of 500 sq. yards on 31.1.1984, was given registration No. 170 and vide letter dated 18.6.1994 he asked for transfer of registration in favour of the respondent. It was, however, alleged that Gurdial Singh despite intimation did not appear before the Scrutiny Committee constituted for the purpose on 26.9.1995 and 25.10.1995. It was further alleged that pursuant to the order dated 1.8.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 10902/95 filed by Gurdial Singh, his name was considered in draw of lots and plot No. 3541, Sector 69 was earmarked for him. It was admitted that on Gurdial Singh's yet another application the Additional Chief Administrator (M) had ordered transfer of registration No. 170 in the name of the respondent on 31.1.1997. Subsequently the Scrutiny Committee accorded permission for transfer of the registration number in the name of the respondent in the meeting held on 24.3.1997. In the meantime, Finance and Accounts Committee of the petitioner authority in the meeting held on 20.3.1997 increased the price of plot from Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 3,600 per sq. yard and allotment letter to the respondent was issued at the revised rate.

(3.) Controversy in this revision centres around the issue as to which of the rates is to be charged from the respondent. As may be seen from the written version, pursuant to the order dated 1.8.95 made in Writ No. 10902/95 the name of the Gurdial Singh was considered in draw of lots and plot No. 3541, Sector 69 was earmarked for him. Evidently on account of pendency of the transfer application the possession of this plot was not given to Gurdial Singh. It is admitted by the petitioner that the application for transfer of registration number was accepted by the Additional Chief Administrator (M) on 31.1.1997 though the Scrutiny Committee accorded permission on 24.3.1997. In the meantime rate came to be revised. Plot which was allotted to the respondent was the same which was earmarked for Gurdial Singh. Having heard parties' learned Counsel we are of the view that respondent is entitled to be allotted the plot at the rate on which Gurdial Singh was entitled to. Rate which the petitioner could charge from Gurdial Singh would have been Rs. 1,800 per sq. yard. The State Commission had, thus, rightly passed the order directing the petitioner to charge price of the allotted plot at Rs. 1,800 instead of Rs. 3,600 per sq. yard. Impugned order, thus, does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error on that count as also in regard to the award of consolidated amount of Rs. 75,000 as compensation.