BALJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition impugns the judgment and order dated 04. 08. 2004 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (in short, the UT Commission) in First Appeal No. 158 of 2004. By this order, the UT Commission upheld the judgment and order dated 19. 12. 2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 144 of 1997 that the respondent Punjab Urban Development Authority (in short, the PUDA) shall pay to the petitioner (original complainant, hereafter the complainant) the sum of Rs. 3,000/- with interest thereon @10% per annum for three years. The UT Commission, however, disallowed the cost of Rs. 550/- awarded by the District Forum to the complainant.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement published by the PUDA in October 1989 regarding demand survey for social housing from Low Income Group (LIG), Middle Income Group (MIG) and High Income Group (HIG) applicants for free-hold, built up houses on hire-purchase basis in several cities and towns of Punjab, the complainant applied for an HIG house in S. A. S. Nagar and deposited the requisite registration fee of Rs. 3,000/- on 20. 11. 1989. However, in September 1996, the complainant received a cheque for Rs. 3,000/- from the PUDA, purportedly as refund of the said registration fee. He returned the said cheque to the issuing bank and wrote back to the PUDA that he had returned the cheque as he wanted to keep alive his registration for allotment of an HIG house. In October 1998, the PUDA informed the complainant that all applicants were being refunded the registration fee deposit and his registration for HIG house could not be continued. In February 1997, i. e. , well before he received the above-mentioned communication from the PUDA, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging unfair trade practice by the PUDA in denying him allotment of an HIG house. After considering the averments and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and the PUDA, the District Forum held that the advertisement issued by the PUDA in October 1989 was only for a demand survey for the above-mentioned three category of houses, in several cities and towns of Punjab and did not, therefore, entitle the complainant to allotment of an HIG house in sector 70, Mohali, as claimed by the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, disposed of the complaint by ordering refund of Rs. 3,000/- by the PUDA to the complainant and interest thereon @ 10% for three years, in view of the ratio of the Apex Courts judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7798 of 2003 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3333/2000) along with costs of Rs. 550/ -. As noted above, by its impugned order the UT Commission disposed of the appeal filed by the complainant, slightly modifying the order of the District Forum.

(3.) WE have heard the parties and considered the documents filed before the lower Fora as well as those filed before us by the PUDA in response to the complainants application for production of certain documents by the former.