Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.05.2011 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs as under ; “The OPs are directed to refund Rs.6,87,500/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective date of its deposit till realization along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy.” 2. In response to the advertisement of the OPs (now appellants), the complainants(now respondents) applied for the registration of allotment of a residential plot of 250 sq.yds., in the upcoming projects, in Mohali in TDI City, Phase-II on 27.03.2008, vide application annexure C-1. Alongwith the application, the complainants attached a cheque/DD/Pay order in the sum of Rs.6,87,500/- as 25%, price of the plot. The complainants were allotted plot of 250 sq. yards, vide letter dated 18.09.2008. They were further required to deposit Rs.5.50 lacs. The complainants were asked by the OPs to make balance payment, failing which, the allotment would be cancelled. It was stated that vide letter dated 28.11.2009, the complainants enquired about the development, if any, and the tentative time, by which, the project was likely to be completed, as the payment was not the sole criterion of the contract, but they failed to give any response. It was further stated that the land, on which the plots, were to be located, had not been acquired by the OPs. The roads had not been laid, nor the sewerage had been provided. It was further stated that the complainants did not receive any information from the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority(hereinafter to be called as GMADA only) that the proposed township of the OPs, had not been cleared, and they had been debarred from developing the site, in question. In response to the queries of the complainants, the OPs, vide letter dated 15.01.2010, annexure C-5, cancelled the registration of plot, without any rhyme or reason. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainants served upon the OPs, a legal notice, dated 4.3.2010, for the refund of the deposited amount, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed, for the refund of amount deposited, with interest and compensation. 3.. The OPs put in appearance, and filed written reply, wherein, it was admitted that the complainants submitted an application for advance registration of 250 sq. yards plot, in the project, referred to, in the complaint, on 02.02.2008 and paid Rs.6,87,500/- vide cheque dated 07.02.2008, out of the total consideration of Rs.27.50 lacs. It was stated that the complainants deposited registration charges, for the allotment of a plot. It was further stated that the OPs sent the letter/intimation dated 18.09.2008 to the complainants, regarding the deposit of the remaining amount of consideration. It was denied that the complainants ever visited the site. It was further stated that the OPs purchased the land and paid the dues to the Government to obtain the CLU. It was further stated that the layout plans were approved by the competent authority. It was further stated that the registration of the complainants, was rightly cancelled vide letter dated 15.01.2010 by the OPs, as they failed to pay the balance outstanding amount, despite reminders. It was further stated that no agreement/contract had been entered into, between the parties, and there was, therefore, no obligation cast upon the OPs, to comply with the terms and conditions of the application form. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 4. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainants, they reiterated the averments, contained in the complaint, and denied the assertions made in the written reply. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6 After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the allotment of plot was made to the complainants, only on papers. It was further concluded by the District Forum that no development of roads, sewerage etc. had been made, at the site, nor, permissions had been obtained from the Government for change of the land user. The District Forum, thus, came to the conclusion, that it was not obligatory on the part of the complainants, to deposit further amount, in the absence of any development at the site. Ultimately, the District Forum, accepted the complaint , in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7 Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed, by the appellants/OPs. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, as no cause of action accrued within the territorial limits of Chandigarh. In para No.19 of the complaint, it was in clear-cut terms, stated by the complainants, that they applied for the registration of a plot, at Chandigarh in the aforesaid scheme of the OPs. It was further stated by them that they sent the cheque which was drawn at Chandigarh towards the deposit of 25% price of the plot. It was further stated that the Regional Office of the OPs, is also located at Chandigarh. The complainants, in their evidence, by way of a joint affidavit, also testified, in this regard. No doubt, the plot allotted to the complainants, is situated at Mohali. Since, the registration of the plot was made at Chandigarh, the cheque regarding the payment of 25% of the price of the plot, was drawn at Chandigarh and the Regional Office of the OPs is at Chandigarh, a part of cause of action arose, to them, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, and, as such, in our considered opinion, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The Counsel for the appellants, however, placed reliance on Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurnace Company Ltd. 2010(1)Consumer Law Today 252, in support of his contention, that the District Forum at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. However, it may be stated here, that in Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), since the fire admittedly broke out, in the godown of the appellant, at Ambala, and the claim for compensation was made at Ambala, it was, under these circumstances, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, came to the conclusion, that since no cause of action had accrued, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the dispute. The facts of the Sonic Surgical’s case (supra) are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. No help, therefore, can be drawn, from the said case by the appellants. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that even the District Forum at Chandigarh had no pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, in as much as, the total price of the plot, registration whereof had been got made, by the complainants, was Rs.27.50 lacs. He further submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, being only to the extent of Rs.20 lacs, it fell into a grave error, in entertaining and deciding the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, appears to be incorrect. The total price of the plot, no doubt, is Rs.27.50 lacs. However, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, is required to be decided, on the basis of relief(s) sought by the complainants, in the complaint. In the instant case, the complainants only sought the relief regarding refund of a sum of Rs.6,87,500/- with interest @ 21% p.a.. The relief sought by the complainants, in the complaint, thus, fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the District Forum fell into a grave error, in holding that no permission for change of land user, had been obtained by the OPs, nor they had carried out any development activities at the spot. The advertisement for the registration of allotment of residential plots, was made by the appellants, on 27.3.2008. They were required to have the requisite permissions, from the competent authority, before the advertisement indicated above, was given by them. The Counsel for the appellants, has invited our attention to R11, copy of the notification dated 18.9.2009, issued by the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development (Housing Branch) vide which, the exemption for the first phase of Mega Housing Project of 74.44 acres of the OPs, was grated to them, from all the provisions of the Punjab Apartment & Property Regulations Act,1995, except Section 32, subject to the terms and conditions, contained therein. According to this notification, the promoter was responsible for obtaining the final NOC from the Punjab Pollution Control Board. Another condition, which was stipulated, in this notification, was that the promoter shall obtain environmental clearance, from the Ministry of Environmental & Forest Government of India, as required under EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 as well as consent to establish(NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board. It was made clear, in this notification, that the promoter will not carry out any works, on the site, till the above conditions were fulfilled. It means that whatever permission was granted vide notification dated 18.9.2009, exempting the first phase of the Mega Project of the OPs from the provisions of the Punjab Apartment & Property Regulations Act,1995, except Section 32, was not in existence, at the time, the advertisement was given. At the time of arguments, the Counsel for the appellants, was asked, as to whether, the other requisite permissions, were obtained by the OPs, from the competent authority and, if so, the same be produced. However, the Counsel for the appellants failed to produce, any other document, showing that the requisite permissions for starting construction and carrying out development at the site, were obtained, before the advertisement was given. He also could not produce any document showing that the conditions contained in Annexure R11 dated 18.9.2009 were fulfilled by the OPs. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the allotment of the plot, was just made on papers and no development, whatsoever, with regard to laying of roads, sewerage and other amenities etc. had been undertaken, by the developer. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/OPs were legally entitled to forfeit the amount of registration, deposited by the complainants. As indicated, in the foregoing paras, since neither the requisite permissions had been obtained, by the OPs, before the advertisement was given, nor the development work had been carried out, at the spot, even till the filing of the complaint on 28.6.2010 or even till date, it was not obligatory upon the complainants to deposit the remaining amount. The complainants could be asked to deposit the remaining amount, had there been any development at the site. It was, under these circumstances, that the complainants did not deposit the remaining amount. The complainants could not, wait indefinitely for possession of the plot, at the whims and fancies of the OPs. In Prasad Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs E.Mahender Reddy & Ors. 1(2009)CPJ 136 (NC), approved layout plans were not supplied. No development work had been carried out, at the site. Thus, the payment of other installments was stopped by the complainant. It was, in these circumstances, held by the Hon’ble National Commission, that the builder could not be allowed to take shelter under any clause of the agreement to usurp money deposited by the complainant. It was further held that, if any clause, in the agreement, entitled the builder to forfeit the deposited amount, even if the fault was on his part, that could be said heavily loaded, in his favour and it amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice. The National Commission, ultimately, upheld the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the refund of the deposited amount, with interest. The principle of law, laid down in Prasad Homes Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since fault lay on the shoulders of the OPs, the complainants, could not be penalized, for the same. Had the requisite permissions been obtained by the OPs, before the advertisement, was given, and had development activities been undertaken, at the spot, by the builder, it could be said that they were well within their right, to forfeit the amount, in case of non-deposit of further installments, by the complainants. The cancellation of allotment/booking and forfeiture of 25% of the amount, deposited by the complainants was, thus, completely illegal, on the part of the OPs. The OPs could not be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong at the cost of the complainants. 13. The Counsel for the appellants, however, placed reliance on HUDA and another Vs Ravinder Sharma, respondent AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1981, in support of his contention that 25% amount of registration could be forfeited by the OPs. In this case, it was laid down, as to under what circumstances, the earnest money could be forfeited. One of the conditions laid down, in the aforesaid case, was that, earnest money could be forfeited, when the transaction fell through, by reason of the default or failure of the purchaser. In the instant case, as stated above, it was the fault of the builder, as it had failed to obtain necessary permissions, from the competent authority, before giving advertisement for the allotment of plots and collected money from the people just with a view to betray and deceive them. The transaction fell through, on account of the fault of the builders, as they failed to undertake the development activity at the site, for want of the requisite permissions, from the competent authorities, before launching the project or even till date. . In these circumstances, 25% of the amount could not be forfeited by the OPs. The facts of the HUDA and another Vs Ravinder Sharma’s case (supra) are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the appellants therefrom. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is rejected. 14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the interest and compensation could not be granted simultaneously. He further submitted that interest granted also amounted to compensating the complainants. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, does not appear to be correct. The words ‘interest’ and ‘compensation’ are sometimes used interchangeably and, on other occasions, they have distinct connotation. ‘Interest’ in general terms is the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. In its narrow sense, ‘interest’ is understood to mean the amount, which one has contracted to pay for use of borrowed money. In whatever category ‘interest’ in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration, paid either for the use of money, or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and, thus, it is a charge for the use or forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by custom or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or for the delay in paying money after it has become payable. The interest was granted, by the District Forum to the complainants, for improper and illegal retention of the amount deposited by them, with the OPs, by the latter, for a long time. Had the amount been refunded to the complainants, immediately, when the project had not taken off, for want of the requisite permissions, required for launching the same, they would have invested the same, in some business or deposited the same in the bank, as a result whereof, they would have got interest thereon. For financial loss, which the complainant incurred, the District Forum, was right, in granting interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited, which could be said to be just, fair and reasonable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, stands rejected. 15. According to Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainant. The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means, compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling the Consumer Foras, to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of ‘compensation’. The provision, in our opinion, enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Consumer Fora to redress any injustice done to him. The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. In this case, the amount of Rs.6,87,500/- was deposited on 27.3.2008. The complainants booked the plot, in the hope of raising construction thereon. Their hopes were dashed to the ground, when they saw that there was no development activity, at the spot, and even necessary permissions had not been obtained by the OPs, for carrying out construction and development before they collected money from the prospective buyers. The complainants, thus, were caused physical harassment and mental agony, by the OPs. In Paramvir Singh Vs P.H.Houses Pvt. Ltd. Revision Petition No.2779 of 2010 decided on 11.5.2011 by the National Commission, in similar circumstances, when possession of the plot was not given by the builder to the complainant for a long period, refund of the amount deposited by him with interest @15% and the compensation were granted by the Hon’ble National Commission. The principle of law, laid down in Paramvir Singh’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The District Forum was, thus, well within its right, to grant interest, as well as compensation simultaneously. The compensation awarded, in this case, is just, fair and reasonable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 16. The order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. The impugned order is upheld. 18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 19. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
