BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complt. Case No : 1393 of 2009 Date of Institution: 19.10.2009 Date of Decision : 09.09.2010 M/s Future Innovations Pvt. Limited, 2228, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing director Sh.Vinod Malhotra. ……Complainant V E R S U S Punjab Information and Communication Technology Corporation Limited (A State Government Undertaking) (Earlier Punjab State Electronic Development and Production Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director/Chairman, Udhyog Bhavan, 5th & 6th Floor, 18 Himalaya Marg, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017. .…..Opposite Party CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv for the complainant. Sh.S.S.Chauhan,Adv. for the OP PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Vinod Malhotra, M.D. of complainant company, seeking damages against the OP for deficiency in service and deceptive & restrictive trade practices. 1] The facts of the case are as under:- The complainant was allotted a plot measuring 5166.77 sq. yards in Eltop Estate, Phase-VIII, Mohali for 99 years lease. The possession was handed over to the complainant on 11.10.1988. Subsequently on 5.4.2001 the OP offered to allot some additional land to the complainant immediately behind the above said plot at the prevailing government rate i.e. Rs.700/- per sq. yard. The terms and conditions for allotment were also laid down and the complainant was asked to give its consent so that the land could be allotted to it. The complainant did not take up the offer. Thereafter the OP vide letter dated 4.3.2003 (Ann.C-4) again offered the same additional land to the complainant but this time at a new and reduced rate of Rs.350/- per sq. yard. The total payment due as per this rate was Rs.5,82,684.50. The payment was to be made within 15days of the issue of the letter. No further outstanding amount was mentioned or demanded. The complainant put forth a submission to the OP that the additional land offered by the OP was a greenbelt and should be offered to it free of cost as it could be maintained as a greenbelt only. They however offered to purchase the additional land at the original allotment price of Rs.80/- per sq. yard. However, subsequently, the complainant agreed to the offer of OP and paid the sum of Rs.5,83,334.50 for the plot. This was at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. yard. The OP was required to complete all necessary formalities to transfer the plot in the name of complainant. At this time, the complainant was instructed not to construct any permanent structure on the additional land. On 10.1.2008 the complainant wrote to the OP and made a demand for issuance of a No Due Certificate, since he wanted to sell the property. The letter of the complainant has been placed at Ann.C-13. As per this letter, the complainant demanded Rs.12,191.80, which according to it was paid in excess to the OP’s as per records and the land subsidy policy in force at that time. When this demand was made, the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 28.3.2008 from the OP wherein the complainant was requested to deposit an amount of Rs.1,92,718/- by 0.4.2008. This amount was on account of interest on delayed payment of cost of additional land given to the complainant. The complainant in the meanwhile had sold the said plot measuring 5167.67 sq. yards plus additional land measuring 1666.66 sq. yards to Sh.Ardaman Singh, Mr.Harminder Pal Singh, Mr.Mahipinder Pal Singh Sandhu and Y.S.Bains, residents of H.No.17, Officers Enclave, Phase-XI, Patiala (Ann.C-18). The NOC was required at the earliest for transfer of the plot. In the constrained circumstances, the complainant under protest deposited the amount demanded by the OP to get the NOC issued in his name. After the sale, the complainant represented to the OP that the claim made and the payment of Rs.1,92,718/-although deposited, was not justified. He demanded refund of the amount. However, since the amount was not returned, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking relief and compensation from the OP for this wrongful charge. 2] After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. 3] The OP in their reply have taken preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and this case is not maintainable before this Forum. Further, they have not indulged in any restrictive trade practice nor are they providing any services to the complainant. The complainant was allotted an independent industrial plot and an adjoining land, for maintaining greenbelt at a concessional rate. He has sold this land at escalated price to another party and is now not entitled to any relief or sympathy from the OP. The offer and acceptance of additional land was only a contract for sale and not any consumer dispute. Remedy, if any, could be under the Indian Contract Act. On merits, the OP has submitted that they had only made an offer for allotment of additional land measuring 1666.66 sq. yds. on concessional rate of Rs.350/- per sq. yard to the complainant. He was free to accept or decline the offer. His acceptance gave birth to a contract between the parties. There was a specific provision that the land was to be maintained as a green belt and thus kept vacant. When the complainant applied for No Due Certificate, it could be issued only after all payment due from the complainant have been received. On checking the records, it was found that the cost of the additional land calculated at Rs.5,83,334.50 was paid by the complainant on 29.11.2003. As per the offer letter dated 5.4.2001 (Ann.C-3), the complainant was liable to pay interest at 19% on this amount, if not paid in time. The relevant account statement was given to the complainant, after which he made the payment of interest of Rs.1,92,718/- on 7.4.2008. The complainant was bound to make this payment and hence there is no breach of contract by the OP. They have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence/documents placed on record by the parties along with case laws. 5] The complainant was forced to make payment of Rs.1,92,718/- when he wished to dispose of the above mentioned plot to a third party and needed NOC/NDC from the OP for executing the transfer. He has also placed on record all correspondence between the parties. The letter at Ann.C-3 is very relevant and has been referred to by both the parties. The allottee was offered an additional land at Rs.700/- per sq. yard as per this letter Ann.C-3. However, a subsequent letter after 2 years shows that the allotment of same land was offered at a reduced rate of Rs.350/- per sq. yard (Ann.C-4). The allottee had accepted the second offer. No further amount was ever demanded by the OP from the complainant for the said land whether relating to cost of land or any interest on delayed payment till he applied for NOC for transfer of the plot in favour of a 3rd party. At this stage, the complainant felt that the demand of the OP was unfair and arbitrary. The OP has contended that the complainant is not a consumer qua them, hence he has no right to make any demand from them under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not find any merit in this contention, hence rejected. 6] In view of the above, even though the OP could have demanded interest from the complainant after payment was delayed, but their reliance on the letter dated 5.4.2001 placed at Ann.C-3 to claim interest is not justified or fair. This offer letter was for the land at the price of Rs.700/- per sq. yard, which was never accepted by the complainant. The complainant gave acceptance to the letter placed at Ann.C-4 vide which the price of the land was reduced to Rs.350/- per sq. yard. The OP has not relied on the later letter, or demanded interest for delay on this payment, if any. 7] In these set of circumstances, it would be unfair if the amount paid by the complainant to the OP is not refunded. They have no right to demand the interest on the earlier offer price of Rs.700/- per sq. yard (Ann.C-3) as referred to above. If they had stated that the additional interest was referred to delayed payment on the offer of Rs.350/- per sq. yard as per letter at Ann.C-4, then the complainant’s claim would be unjustified, but this is not so. 8] In view of the above findings, we deem it fit to allow this complaint. The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,92,718/- to the complainant, paid by him towards interest at the time of issuance of NOC. They will also pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and costs for unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer unnecessary harassment at the time of issuance of NOC. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the amount of Rs.2,02,718/- along with interest @12% per annum, from the date of the order till its actual payment to the complainant. 10] Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance. Announced 9th Sept., 2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER “om”
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1393 OF 2009 | | PRESENT: None. Dated the 9th day of September, 2010 | O R D E R Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. |
| | | (Madhu Mutneja) | (Lakshman Sharma) | (Ashok Raj Bhandari) | Member | President | Member |
| MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | |