ORDER
Anupam Dasgupta, Member
1. This case illustrates how a citizen can be harassed by a Statutory Body. Despite the order of the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to restore the allotment of a residential plot of land by recovering instalments from the allottee, the officers concerned mischievously demanded interest twice over on the instalments due, which was de hars the statutory rules or the lease deed. On the same amount, the demand was for interest at the rate of 15 per cent p.a., and also for interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. i.e., in all 27 per cent p.a. This demand was totally arbitrary and compelled the allottee to seek redressal, in which process he was opposed tooth and nail by the GDA at every stage, culminating in this revision petition, once again by the GDA.
2. The revision petition impugns the judgment and order dated 6th December, 2001 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 207/SC/1994.
3. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the petitioner GDA, against the judgment and order dated 1st January, 1994 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereafter referred to as the District Forum), Ghaziabad. By the said order, the District Forum had directed the GDA (i) not to cancel the allotment of plot of land bearing No. A1/1, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad to the complainant; (ii) to revoke the order to pay penal interest (r) 15 per cent per annum on the instalments deposited late by the complainant; (iii) to send another demand letter detailing the remaining due instalments of payment in respect of the said plot within one month to the complainant and also directed the complainant to deposit, on receipt of the revised demand letter, the remaining amount with the GDA within fifteen days and take over possession of the plot.
The State Commission dismissed the GDA’s appeal filled against the above mentioned order of the District Forum and also modified the latter’s order to the extent that the complainant would have the right to pay the balance amount to the GDA in lump sum or in instalments.
4. The facts of the case deserve to be recalled in some detail:
(a) Under allotment letter dated 19.5.1986, the GDA allotted to the respondent in this petition (hereinafter referred to as the ‘allottee’) a residential plot of land, admeasuring 460.37 sq. mts. Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. The allotment letter stated that the cost of the plot was Rs. 2,08,813 and required the allottee to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 41,778.60 straightaway. This letter also prescribed a schedule of payment of further eight six-monthly instalments (each of Rs. 20,889.30, starting from 21st May, 1986 and ending on 21st November, 1989).
(b) The allottee paid the first two instalments amounting to Rs. 62,666 but failed, to pay the remaining on time. The GDA issued notices to the allottee from time-to-time for payment of the due instalments. On the allottee still failing to pay, the GDA finally issued a notice dated 28th April, 1988 requiring him to pay the various amounts mentioned in the said notice within six months of its receipt, failing which it was stated that the allotment would be cancelled. The allotment was actually cancelled by the GDA under its letter dated 25th January, 1990, i.e., much after the notice period of six months.
(c) However, on a representation of the allottee against this cancellation, the Vice-Chairman, GDA restored the allotment Following this, the GDA office, by its letter dated 31st March, 1990, asked the allottee to pay:
(i) outstanding instalments (Rs. 1,46,257.30-3rd to 9th instalments);
(ii) interest on instalments @ 12% (Rs. 35,101.95);
(iii) interest on late payment of instalments @ 15% (Rs. 57,604.75);
(iv) lease rent up to [sic] 19.9.1986 to 31.3.1991 (Rs. 150.00);
(v) interest (Rs. 40.00); and
(vi) restoration charges (Rs. 2,301.85), i.e., total Rs. 2,41,455.25, within one month from the date of issue of the letter.
(d) In compliance with this letter, the allottee sent a bank draft for Rs. 2 lakh to the GDA, under his letter of 30th April, 1990, i.e., within the stipulated period of one month of the GDA’s said letter. The GDA returned the bank draft on the ground that partial payment of the demanded amount was not acceptable and that the allotment of the plot could be restored only if the allottee made full payment of the amount demanded by 31st May, 1990. There was protracted correspondence between the allottee and the GDA during May, 1990 to August, 1992 on the issue of interest demanded by the GDA. The GDA reiterated its stand each time and raised demands for higher and higher amounts of interest in successive letter, on account of the alleged delay by the allottee in depositing the balance amount of original seven instalments. At one stage, GDA itself described the interest (c) 15% per annum as “penal interest on instalments” in addition to the “interest on instalments @ 12%”. This compelled the allottee to approach the District Forum in September, 1992, with the result already noted.
Findings:
5. (a) Two documents filed by the GDA, viz., (i)(English translation of) GDA’s letter dated 19.5.1986 relating to allotment of the plot of land to the allottee and (ii)(Engligh translation of) the lease deed executed between the GDA and the allottee on 19.9.1986 clarify how misleading and mischievous the GDA’s stand has all along been.
(b) GDA’s letter of 19.5.1986 fixed the cost of the plot at Rs. 2,08,813 and stated, inter alia, as under:
3. If the first instalment/ lump sum amount not (sic) deposited in prescribed time then (sic) Authority has reserved its right to cancel the allotment or forfeit the deposited advance amount or accept the deposit with 15% p.a. interest along with first instalment or lump sum amount.
Rest instalment (sic) has to be deposited by you as follows:
——————————————————————
Instalment Amount Date II Instalment 20,889.30 12% p.a. Interest 21.5.1986 III Instalment 20,889.30 is also payable 21.11.1986 IV Instalment 20,889.30 on premium 21.5.1987 [xxx xxx xxx Details as in the letter referred to above xxxxxx] IX Instalment 20,889.30 21.11.1989 ------------------------------------------------------------------ This clearly brings out the interest inconsistency of the GDA's letter i.e., whether the rate of interest applicable on delayed payment of instalments was 15% or 12% p.a.
(c)(i) The lease deed of September, 1986, on the other hand, fixed the cost of die same plot at Rs. 2,08,893 (as against Rs. 2,08,813 in the allotment letter of 19.5.1986), acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 62,667.90 out of that and went on to provide for a schedule of payment of the remaining 7 instalments, starting on or before 21.11.1986 and ending on or before 21.11.1989.
There is clearly an error here, though of a small amount. After deducting the initial payment of Rs. 62,667.90 from Rs. 2,08,893, the amount of each remaining instalment (in all 7) would be Rs. 20,889.30 and not Rs. 20,893.90. On the other hand, if the total cost were taken at Rs. 2,08,813, as in the letter of allotment, the amount of each remaining instalment would be Rs. 20,877.87.
(ii) Clause 2(1) of the lease deed clearly stipulated payment of “interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the sum of residual instalment from the fixed date to the actual payment thereof” if the “leassee fails to make payment of any instalment within one month from the date fixed therefore”.
(iii) Clause 1(a) of the lease deed also stipulated the payment of annual (lease) rent, in advance on the first day of April of each year at the rate of Rs. 30 for the first 15 years, Rs. 60 for the next 15 years and so on. Clause 2(2) of the lease deed provided, “….If the annual rent of the said lease or part thereof remains to be unpaid (sic), the Authority shall have a right to recover the (sic) interest at the rate of 12 per cen t per annum, including the cost (sic) thereof”.
(d) Thus, the lease deed abundantly clarified that the rate of interest applicable to delayed payment of six-monthly instalments was 15%p.a. whereas that applicable to delayed payment of annual lease rent was 12% p.a.
6. (a) GDA’s letter of 19.5.1986 was thus confusing in respect of the applicable rate(s) of interest in case of default in payment of the dues by the allottee. This by itself constituted a deficiency in service by a Public Authority. The least it owed to its clients/allottees was a clear communication of the monetary demands involved in such cases.
(b) Tine infirmities in the letter of allotment (though rectified in the lease deed) were compounded in all subsequent demands raised by the GDA on the allottee on account of the latter’s delay in payment of the prescribed instalments and annual lease rent.
(c) The apparently arbitrary, mindless and opaque nature of the demands raised by the GDA on the allottee would be clear from the following:
(i) The GDA issued, in quick succession, three notices dated 7.7.1987, 26.10.1987 and 19.11.1987 respectively to the allottee. These notices required the latter to pay interest amounting to Rs. 27,853.20, Rs. 27,878.85 and Rs. 29,873.15 respectively, on delayed payment of the third and fourth instalments, each of Rs. 20,893.90 These interest demands are absurd. At 15% p.a., the interest due because of delay in payment of the 3rd and 4th instalments, due by the dates of these notices, would be Rs. 2,611.75, Rs. 4,701.31 and Rs. 4,702.31 respectively.
(ii) Secondly, each of the three notices referred to above disclosed the amounts only under the following heads:
Instalment Interest, Levy/Lease Rent, Other Outstanding, Total Amount Payable.
It is to be noted that neither the amount of each instalment due, nor the period of delay with reference to the due date(s), nor the rate of interest applied were mentioned in these notices.
(iii)(a) Thirdly, and most important, in its letter of 31.3.1990 regarding restoration of the plot to the allottee, GDA’s total demand of Rs. 2,41,455 included an amount of Rs. 35,101.95 by way of interest (c) 12% p.a. and also a sum of Rs. 57,604.75 as interest @ 15% p.a., both for delay in payment of instalments. As in the case of the notices issued earlier, no details were furnished on the all-important calculation of interest. In view of the explicit provisions of the lease deed, interest was chargeable for delayed payments of the instalments only @ 12% p.a. was patently arbitrary, unjustified and perverse.
(b) Further, a simple calculation would show that the interest @ 15% p.a. on delayed payment of the balance 7 instalments of Rs. 20,889.30 each, as on 31.3.1990, would come to a sum no more than Rs. 40,820 approximately, and not Rs. 57,604.75.
(c) Therefore, the total demand for restoration of the allotment should have been no more than Rs. 1,89,600, after rounding off. Thus, had the errors apparent been rectified by the GDA in time and in good faith, the amount payable by the allottee would have been in no case such as to entitled the GDA to return the draft of Rs. 2 lakh sentby the allottee to the GDA on 30.4.1990, on grounds of partial payment. The question of the allottee having to seek redressal in this matter before any Forum would then have simply not arisen and neither the former nor the District Forum nor the State Commission nor this Commission nor the GDA itself would have had to spend time and money on these protracted proceedings. What is this to be termed, if not grossly serious-in fact, deliberately mischievous-deficiency of service?
7. (a) It needs to be reiterated that the officers of the GDA delayed handing over of the possession of the plot to the allottee despite receipt, within the stipulated time, of the draft of Rs. 2 lakh and returned the draft with some oblique motives and, on top, continued adversarial litigation with all vehemence. Finally, on the basis of our orders dated 2nd May, 2006, the GDA delivered possession of the plot to the allottee in May, 2006. Even at that stage, the complainant was required to deposit the full amount initially (and, as amply demonstrated above, wrongly) demanded by the GDA. It also needs to be stated it was only after a lot of harassment and much wrangling that the GDA handed over possession of the plot to the allottee. The allottee-complainant thus remained out of possession of the plot for 16 long years. For this delay, the GDA is liable to pay compensation. Even if we consider that for each year of delay, a minimum of Rs. 5,000 can be awarded as compensation for the loss suffered by the allottee-complainant, then for the period of 16 years, the GDA is liable to pay Rs. 80,000 as compensation.
(b) It is to be further stated that it would be open to the GDA to recover the amount of compensation from its defaulting officers, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta , the relevant portion of which is as under:
The authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharge public duty; it has to act to observe general welfare in common good; in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility of the system; where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment and that the officer can no more claim to be under any protective cover.
The Court pertinently held:
It should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
(c) This would be in consonance with the provisions of Sections 14(1)(d) and 14(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which are as under:
14(1)(d): to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:
Provided that the District Forum will have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;
14(1)(i): to provide for adequate costs to parties.
(d) For better administration/governance, the aforesaid law is required to be implemented so that the welfare schemes framed by the Government reach the common consumer and the objects of such schemes are not frustrated.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the GDA is required to refund Rs. 35,1001.95 which was recovered by it as interest @ 12% p.a. on the instalments because the complainant had already paid Rs. 57,604.75 as interest @ 15% p.a. for late payment of the instalments.
9. In the result, the GDA is directed to (i) refund Rs. 35,000 (rounded off) to the complainant (respondent in this petition) within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order and (ii) nay a sum of Rs. 80,000 as compensation.
10. Further, the GDA is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 80,000 with the Registrar of this Commission who, in turn, would deposit the said amount in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.