Surinder Singh (Retd.), President:
1. This order will dispose of complaint case Nos. 20, 36,44, 52, 75, 86 and 167 filed by All India Defence Personnel Welfare Association (Regd.) Chandigarh through its Chairman Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta against the Punjab Housing Development Board, S.C.O. No. 63-64, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, as the common question of facts and law arise in all these complaints.
2. For facility of reference, the facts in the main complaint case No. 16 may be noticed. The allegations contained in the complaint briefly stated are these. These complainant is a voluntary welfare organisation registered under the Registration of Societies Act. It has a large number of retired defence personnel as its Members and has been championing the cause of Ex-servicemen. Several Ex-servicemen listed in each complaint approached the complainant Association for redressal of their grievance against the respondent Board, regarding its failure to provide the requisite services viz. Development of plots, providing of sewerage and other amenities at the agreed rate of consideration. It is stated that the Members of the Association concerned in this complaint, applied for allotment of plots at S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in Sector 71, which was to be carved out exclusively for defence personnel. The applications were made as far back as in 1972 to 1974. The respondent received the 10% of the total price of the plots to be allotted to the applicants. The total price of a plot of one kanal (500 sq. yards) was fixed at Rs. 13,500/-. There is no mention in the receipt issued to the allottees that the price was tentative or was liable to be increased. After receipt of the above mentioned 10% amount of the total price, the respondent maintained âa calculated silence all these years.
3. In the year 1983 the government revised the policy regarding allotment of plots and enhanced the price of each plot as detailed in the letters such as Annexure C-5 and Annexure C-22 and called upon the applicants to deposit the excess amount at the enhanced rate. The applicants who had no choice but to submit to this enhancement, made the necessary deposits.
4. In spite of the fact that the applicants had deposited the excess amount in consequence of the revised policy in 1983, the government kept quiet by not taking any action in the matter for about six years. It was only in the year 1989 that Allotment Letters such as those marked as Annexures C-2, C- 3, C-4 and C-6 to C-21 were issued to the applicants. However, the complainant Association was surprised to learn that the price of the plots had been again enhanced unilaterally and exorbitantly as shown the Allotment Letters mentioned above. The matter was taken up by the Association with the concerned officers of the Government of Punjab but as the subject of allotment of plots had been transferred by the Punjab Government to the respondent Board nothing was done in the matter. The complainants further pleaded that the Members of the Association had suffered on account of non-performance of services viz non-allotment of plots for the last 18 years; loss suffered on account of the inability of the allottees to start construction because of the delay in the allotment; non-payment of interest on earnest money etc. With these allegations, the complainant prayed for a direction to the respondent Board to restrict them to charge the original price of the plots as prevailing in 1972 to 1974 or in the alternative to the price as enhanced in 1983. A further prayer was made that the respondent be directed to pay the items of loss as noticed above.
5. Notice of the complaint having been issued to the respondent Board, it filed a reply resisting the complaint on certain preliminary objections and also on merits. The complainants filed a rejoinder. Both the parties have placed on record a number of documents but for the purpose of deciding these complaints, only a few of them require consideration.
6. It would be appropriate to dispose of the preliminary objections, in the first instance. The first objection taken is that the Board is a statutory body and hence it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Commission. We do not agree with this contention because by now it is well settled law that housing and construction activity particularly by the Government or even statutory bodies like Housing Boards fall within the purview of the Act and any deficiency in their service can be complained against by the consumer i.e. allottees in the present case. Another facet of the same objection is the contention that an allottee does not fall within the definition of the world âconsumer because the subject-matter in dispute is immovable property. This argument is also fallacious. It is not necessary that only those who buy goods fall within the definition of a consumer but all those who utilise any service which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment are also consumers as defined under the Act
7. The allottees who had applied for allotment of plots had deposited a substantial amount on account of advance payment and after the allotment of these plots they certainly fall within the definition of consumer.
8. On merits, there is no manner of doubt that when this scheme for allotment of plots were originally floated in the year 1972-74 the announced price of the plots was at the rate of about Rs. 23/- per sq. yard. After keeping the applicants waiting for about 10 years, the government unilaterally revised the policy in regard to the-pricing of the plot and raised the same to Rs. 85/- per sq. yard. The allottees who are defence personnel and had offered their sweat and blood for the security of the country deserved the maximum benefits and concessions from the government. This fact is also evident from the letter Annexure C-22 in which it was specifically mentioned that a certain percentage of plots would be reserved for defence personnel and war widows. The government having announced this policy and the reservation aforesaid, it did not behave the present respondent Board, legally or morally, to make a unilateral enhancement again in the price of plots while issuing the Allotment letters. A two-fold argument is addressed on behalf of the Board on this point. Firstly it is submitted that the Housing Board came into existence in the year 1972 and the matter of allotment of plots was transferred to the Board in the year 1988. The allotment letters were issued in the year 1989 and as such there was no delay on the part of the Board to make the allotments. This may be a defence in so far as the question of delay by the Board is concerned but it has not been explained as to why the allotments were not made in favour of the applicants for several years even after the price of the plots was enhanced in 1983. Furthermore the Housing Board had stepped into the shoes of the concerned government department and was very much bound by the commitment made by the said department with the applicants. The second leg of argument on behalf of the Board is that the question of allotment of plots at any price considered reasonable by it is its prerogative and if the allottees felt that the price was exorbitant they could refuse to accept the plots and purchase their requirement from other sources in the open market. The arguments, to say the least, is preposterous. The monarchic attitude of the ruler is a story of the past. In the present set up the government is an institution created by the constitution, consisting of functionaries elected by the people to serve the citizens of a welfare State. These observations equally apply to government instrumentalities and statutory bodies, who are called upon to perform certain duties in different fields of activity for the welfare of the community, particularly for the defence personnel. Housing Development Board is one such institution which provides the essential service of housing the citizens. Any deficiency inadequacy or arbitrariness in the performance of this service can be monitored by Consumer Tribunals. We have no hesitation in rejecting both the contentions discussed above.
9. As regards the relief to be granted in all these cases, the matter is to be viewed from the angle not only of pure arithmetic but also on priciples of natural justice and fair play. We are of the view that no evidence of justification has been shown to us for making a further enhancement in the price of the plots after the same had been very substantially enhanced in the year 1983. We would also like to observe that if the allottees in some cases had to deposit some amount over and above the rate as prescribed in the year 1983, it is presumed to have been done under a genuine apprehension of losing their right of allotment after having waited for about two decades. No argument can therefore be built in favour of the respondent on this score. In the result the respondent is directed to allow the retention of the plots alloted to the various applicants at the price as revised by the government in 1983 and not to charge anything over and above that price. The amount due in the case of each allottee shall be calculated accordingly. The other claims for compensation under other heads as enumerated in the complaints are deemed to have been rejected. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs in all these cases.
Announced in open Court.Parties be informed.