DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President & Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA—Complainant
versus
URBAN IMPROVEMENT COMPANY (P) LTD.—Opposite Party
Complaint Case No. 01 of 2005—Decided on 11.8.2006
Cancellation of Plot - Property Rights - [Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 74, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, particularly Section 73 and Section 74, to determine the rights of the complainant in seeking relief for non-delivery of possession of the plots. Additionally, the court referred to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, focusing on Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), and Section 2(1)(r) to establish the unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by the opposite party. The interpretation of these legal provisions influenced the court's decision to allow the complaint and order the opposite party to either allot the plots or compensate the complainant for the wrongful cancellation.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, aged 50 at the time of booking, sought possession of two plots booked in 1961, but the opposite party cancelled the plots in 2002 due to alleged non-payment of additional development charges. The complainant, now 95, sought possession or compensation for the plots.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party engaged in unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by wrongfully cancelling the allotment after 33 years, despite accepting various payments towards illegal demands. The court also noted the complainant's prolonged wait for possession and the opposite party's ulterior motive of earning illegal profits.
Issues: The issues involved the wrongful cancellation of plots, unfair trade practices, deficiency in service, and the complainant's right to seek possession or compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party's actions constituted unfair trade practices and deficiency in service, violating the complainant's rights. The court also emphasized the prolonged wait for possession and the opposite party's ulterior motive of earning illegal profits.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the opposite party was directed to either allot the plots or compensate the complainant for the wrongful cancellation.
Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—Complainant was 50 years old when he booked two plots, one in his name and another in his wife’s name with the opposite party Urban Improvement Co. (P) Ltd. in Greenfield Society. Having waited for 45 years and having paid the entire consideration amount, he could not get the possession as the plots were cancelled in the year 2002 allegedly on non-payment of the amounts demanded from time to time on account of additional development charges. He is now 95 years old and has on account of wrongful cancellation of the plots, through this complaint, sought following reliefs:
A. Direct the respondent to immediately handover the peaceful possession to the complainant of the said plot No. N-94, measuring 223 sq. yds. booked in the name of the complainant and that of the said Plot No. N-135 measuring 267 sq. yds. booked in the name of late Smt. Mohan Devi Sharma the wife of the complainant or in the alternative direct inter alia to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 per sq. yards i.e. Rs. 22,30,000 for the said plot No. N-94 and Rs. 26,70,000 on the said plot No. N-135, to the complainant for non-delivery of the possession of the said plot and/or plots as the present market value of the said plot/plots with interest @ 24% from the date of filing the present petition till realisation of the said amount.
B. Direct the respondent to pay a suitable rather exemplary damages to the complainant for the respondent’s failure to hand over the timely possession of the said plot/plots to the complainant, as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Facts as disclosed by the complainant in short are that the complainant had booked two plots of land in the Greenfield Society with the OP in the year 1961 viz. one plot in his name and the second in the name of his wife late Smt. Mohan Devi Sharma, who expired on 7.3.1990 and consequently the name of complainant was substituted in her place. The payments towards cost of the said plots were made in stipulated instalments to the OP. The details of payments made by the complainant in respect of Plot No. N-94,(measuring 222 sq. yds) in his name are as under:
(a)
Total cost of the plot as per offer documents, including the cost of entire development work.
Rs.
3,145.50
(b)
15% paid on 18.2.1961
Rs.
472.00
(c)
20% paid on 11.9.1962
Rs.
629.00
(d)
20% paid on 15.10.1962
Rs.
629.00
(e)
20% paid on 23.10.1962
Rs.
629.00
(f)
20% paid on 16.3.1964
Rs.
629.00
3. The balance amount of the cost of plot was to be paid at the time of completion of the arrangement of lighting etc. But the project was delayed by the OP company. On 22.2.1967 the company demanded ‘Additional Development Charges’ (ADC) from the plot holders @ Rs. 6 per sq. yd. even though at the time of booking of plots there was no mention of such charges to be recovered from the plot holders. Every cost of development was included in the cost of the plot. The plot holders objected to the same and did not pay ADCs at that time.
4. On 2.9.1969 the OP advised that plot area had been increased by 50 sq. yds from 233 yds. but later on in May, 1982 it was actually decreased to 222 sq. yds. and the plot No. was also changed. In May 1982 i.e. after 15 years the OP company demanded Additional Development Charges (ADCs) @ Rs. 65 per sq. yd. and the same were paid through following instalments:
(g) 1st instalment of Rs.4,014.00 was paid on 10.8.1983 .
(h) 2nd instalment of Rs.3,300.00 was paid on 10.8.1984.
(i) 3rd instalment of Rs. 3,3300.00 was paid on 12.10.1985.
(j) 4th instalment of Rs. 4,400.00 was paid on 20.3.1987.
(k) On 20.3.1987 complainant paid Rs. 370.00 against interest on account of delay in deposit of ADCs.
5. In April, 1988 the OP Company asked the plot holders to deposit the cost of stamp papers and registration fee, but it took no steps for registration of the plots in the name of plot holders. Additional amount of Rs. 6,000 was deposited on A/c of change in area of plot on 16
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.