BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.291 of 2013

Date of Institution: 15-04-2013

Date of Decision: 11-06-2015

Ramesh Chand Gautam son of Sh.Ram Ratan, resident of House No. 34, Gali No.6, Krishna Nagar, Amar Kot, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Amritsar Improvement Trust, having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Chairman/ Executive Officer.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.K.P.Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ramesh Chand Gautam under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the Opposite Party had floated a ‘Mall Mandi Scheme’ in Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar for allotment of plots. The complainant was also allotted one plot bearing No. A-276, Khasra No.65  under the scheme   vide allotment letter dated 10.6.2005. At the time of allotment, the complainant was assured by the Opposite Party that opposite party is  owner of the land wherein the plot of complainant is situated. The complainant paid the entire consideration at the time of allotment to the Opposite Party. The complainant was also assured that the possession of the plot would be handed over within a period of 3 years and necessary amenities would also be provided alongwith the possession. Thereafter, the complainant got the site plan of the plot sanctioned from Opposite Party. The sale deed of the plot was also executed in favour of the complainant. The complainant took a loan of Rs.2 lacs from the bank for the construction of his plot. The complainant started construction of his plot after purchasing all raw material such as bricks, cement, iron rods (saria) etc. and erected a wall upto 7 feet, but all of sudden some other person namely Kartar Singh came alongwith some other unidentified notorious persons at the spot and openly threatened complainant that he is the owner of this land wherein the plot   is situated and stalled the construction made by the complainant and also took away all the material brought by the complainant for construction of his plot from the site. Immediately, the complainant went to the office of Opposite Party and openly agitated the matter with them personally and when the personal visits of complainant did not yield any fruitful result, then the complainant also served letters to the Opposite Party apprising them about the suffering of complainant and requested them to stop such person from interfering into the construction carried on by the complainant on his plot and help the complainant in construction of the plot, but the Opposite Party evinced no interest in the demand and request of the complainant. The complainant served letters dated 27.12.2010, then on 22.03.2011 and then on 9.8.2012 in this regard, to the Opposite Party,  but in vain. Surprisingly, after exhausting all such rights, in such an eventuality, now the complainant came to know from the office of Opposite Party that the Opposite Party is not the owner of the said land wherein the plot of the complainant is situated. The Opposite Party at the time of allotment assured the complainant that he is the owner of the land ad upon such assurances, the complainant invested or parted with his hard earned money with the Opposite Party. If the Opposite Party was not the owner of the said land, then how the Opposite Party dared to allot  such plot to the innocent person after leading him upto such heights where he never reach even after parting with his hard earned money. The complainant first of all, paid the entire consideration of the plot in the year of 2005. The complainant also paid fee for getting his plan sanctioned from local authorities. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.79,000/- for the purpose of registration of the said plot. The complainant invested a sum of Rs.4 lacs for purchasing the raw material for constructing the plot. The complainant despite such investment is languishing with empty  lands and could not  construct his plot till today. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to allot another plot under scheme free from all encumbrances of same demarcations/ boundaries without levying any expenses of any kind from the complainant, to pay  the interest @ 18% per annum of the total amount deposited from the date o deposit till providing of plot alongwith with basic amenities, to pay Rs.4 lacs incurred by the complainant for purchasing raw material for construction of his plot alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the plot No.A-276 falls under the development scheme of Opposite Party Trust namely Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (Mall Mandi), Amritsar and after preparing the lay out plan of the said scheme, plots were allotted under different categories through draw system. At the time of delivering the possession of the plots, it came into the notice of Opposite Party that some of the plots under said scheme were falling under the area, which is not in possession of the Opposite Party and the plot in question bearing No.A-276 also falls under the said area. It is submitted that under the scheme Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (Mall Mandi), Amritsar, there is certain land lying vacant under Area Reserve M.S.Flats (Residential) and after survey, they are making plots of different sizes over the said land and out of which the site plan of one pocket has been prepared and another site plan is under process and it has been decided that after considering the matter in the next meeting  of the Trust, the case shall be sent to government and after getting approval from the Government, the plots for the said pocket shall be allotted to the said persons whose plots are not existing at the place where they were shown in Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Scheme. The complainant had got registered his sale deed from the Opposite Party trust without getting the possession or demarcation of the plot on the spot and also got sanctioned his site plan without getting demarcation or possession of the plot, as such the Opposite Party is not liable for any kind of damages. The trust is ready to give an alternative plot from the above mentioned two pockets, which are also with complete amenities. The Opposite Party is further ready to refund the complainant the amount made by him for the cost of said plot.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C24 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jiwan Bansal, Executive Officer Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP19  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant applied and allotted one plot under ‘Mall Mandi Scheme’ in Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar bearing No.A-276, khasra No. 65 vide allotment letter dated 10.6.2005. The complainant paid the entire consideration i.e. price of the plot Rs.4,52,250/- @ Rs.3015/- per square yard, at the time of allotment to the Opposite Party. Symbolic possession of the plot was also given  on 10.9.2005 as is evident  from the agreement Form (D or S) Ex.C2 duly signed by the Chairman of the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the complainant got site plan of the plot sanctioned/ approved from the Opposite Party. Opposite Party also executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant regarding the plot in question Ex.C3. Complainant alleges that  he took a loan of Rs.2 lacs from the bank for the construction of this plot and  started the construction of his plot after purchasing all raw material such as bricks, cement, iron rods (saria) etc. and erected a wall upto 7 feet, but some erson namely Kartar Singh came alongwith some other unidentified notorious persons at the spot and threatened complainant that he is the owner of this land and stalled the construction being  made by the complainant and also took away all the material bought & brought by the complainant for construction of his plot from the site. Thereafter, the complainant approached the  Opposite Party and also served many letters to the Opposite Party apprising them about the suffering of complainant and requested them to stop such persons from interfering into the construction  being carried on by the complainant at his plot, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Then, the complainant served letter   dated 27.12.2010, which was duly received by the Opposite Party vide diary No. 1048. The complainant also served another letter  on 22.03.2011 through registered post. The complainant also served another letter on 9.8.2012 which was also duly received by the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not redress the grievance of the complainant.   The complainant came to know that the Opposite Party is not the owner of the said land wherein the plot of the complainant was alloted . Complainant alleges that if   the Opposite Party was not the owner of the said land, then why the Opposite Party allotted the plot to the complainant. The complainant paid   the entire sale consideration of the plot to the Opposite Party in the year of 2005 and also paid fee for getting his plan sanctioned from local authorities. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.79,000/- for the purpose of registration of the said plot. Complainant alleges that he  invested a sum of Rs.4 lacs for purchasing the raw material for constructing the plot, but he could not construct his plot. The complainant requested the Opposite Party to allot him another plot under the scheme under which the Opposite Party is owner and the complainant would not face any hindrance, but the Opposite Party did not respond to the request of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as a result of which, the complainant suffered huge financial loss and harassment.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the plot No.A-276 falls under the development scheme of Opposite Party Trust namely Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (Mall Mandi), Amritsar. After preparing the lay out plan of the said scheme, plots were allotted under different categories through draw system. Opposite Party submitted that at the time of delivering the possession of the plots, it came into the notice of Opposite Party that some of the plots under said scheme were falling under the area, which is not in possession of the Opposite Party and the plot in question bearing No.A-276 also falls under the said area. There is another land lying  vacant under Area Reserve M.S.Flats (Residential) in the aforesaid scheme Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (Mall Mandi), Amritsar  and out of which the site plan of one pocket has been prepared and the case shall be sent to government and after getting approval from the Government, the plots for the said pocket shall be allotted to the said persons whose plots are not existing at the place where they were shown in Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Scheme. Opposite Party admitted that the complainant had got registered his sale deed from the Opposite Party trust without getting the possession or actual possession and demarcation of the plot on the spot and also got sanctioned the site plan without getting demarcation or possession of the plot, as such the Opposite Party is not liable for any kind of damages. The Opposite Party is ready to give an alternative plot from the above mentioned two pockets, which are also with complete amenities. The Opposite Party is also ready to refund the complainant the amount made by him for the cost of said plot.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that under these circumstances, the Opposite Party did not commit any deficiency of service to the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant applied for and was allotted one plot r bearing No.A-276, khasra No. 65 (150 square yard) under   ‘Mall Mandi Scheme’ in Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar vide allotment letter dated 10.6.2005. The complainant paid the entire consideration i.e. price of the plot Rs.4,52,250/- @ Rs.3015/- per square yard to the Opposite Party in the year 2005 and the Opposite Party gave Symbolic possession of the plot in question to the complainant on 10.9.2005. After receiving the entire amount of the plot from the complainant, the Opposite Party  executed the agreement of sale in favour of the complainant Ex.C2. Not only this, the Opposite Party also got executed and registered the sale deed in favour of the complainant regarding the plot in dispute, copy of which is Ex.C3 on 19.11.2010. Opposite Party also  sanctioned/ approved the site plan of the plot of the complainant for construction over the plot in dispute, copy of which is Ex.C23, thereby giving the permission to the complainant to raise the construction over the plot in dispute. Opposite Party has submitted that complainant did not take the actual possession of the plot in dispute after demarcation from the Opposite Party. This plea of the Opposite Party is totally baseless. If the actual possession of the plot in dispute after the demarcation was not given to the complainant, why the Opposite Party executed the sale deed of the plot in question in favour of the complainant and got the same registered, copy of which is Ex.C3 and why the Opposite Party has sanctioned/ approved the site plan of the plot in question  of the complainant, thereby  allowing him to raise the construction over the said plot. Sanctioned site plan duly approved by the Opposite Party, of the plot of the complainant, is Ex.C23.
9. It has been admitted by the Opposite Party in their written version that at the time of delivery of the possession of the plots to the allottees,  the Opposite Party came to know that some of the plots under scheme were falling under the area which is not in possession of the Opposite Party and the plot in question  of the complainant bearing No.A-276 also falls under the said area, which fully proves that the Opposite Party has allotted the plot in question to the complainant without ascertaining the fact that whether the plot in question belongs to Opposite Party or whether the Opposite Party is competent to allot the said plot to the  complainant.  All this fully proves that the Opposite Party has committed total irregularities while allotting the plot in question to the complainant. Not only this, the Opposite Party has also received the entire price of the plot in question from the complainant i.e. Rs.4,52,250/- in the year 2005 and gave symbolic possession of the plot in question to the complainant without knowing  the fact that the area of the plot in question does not belong to the Opposite Party, rather to some other person whose property has been sold by the opposite party to the complainant. Not only this, the Opposite Party executed agreement of sale in favour of the complainant regarding the plot in question Ex.C2, after receiving the entire amount of the plot in question from the complainant and gave symbolic possession of the plot in question on 10.9.2005 as mentioned in the agreement of sale Ex.C2. Not only this, the Opposite Party has also executed sale deed regarding plot in question in favour of the complainant Ex.C3 fully knowing that plot in question does not belong to the Opposite Party and the complainant had to pay Rs.72,000/- for the registration of the sale deed to the revenue authorities as is evident from the sale deed Ex.C3 dated 19.11.2010. Not only this, the Opposite Party approved/ sanctioned the site plan of the plot in question Ex.C23 thereby permitting/ allowing the complainant to raise the construction over the plot in question. Not only this, the complainant took loan from Bank of India for raising the construction over the plot in question as is evident from the statement of account Ex.C24. The complainant further alleges that he purchased raw material i.e. bricks, sand, crusher (Bajri), cement, etc. and in this regard, he filed affidavit of Sh.Parwinder Singh of Arora Trading Company, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar Ex.C16 as well as  affidavit of Sh.Deepak Bhatia of Bhole Shanker Bricks Industry, Village Lopoke, Amritsar Ex.C20. The complainant alleges that he started the construction over the plot in question, but one Kartar Singh came alongwith some other unidentified notorious persons at the spot and  threatened complainant that Kartar Singh is the owner of this land and they stalled the construction being made by the complainant and also took away all the material bought by the complainant for construction of his plot from the site, but the complainant could not produce any evidence in this regard that said Kartar Singh had taken away all the aforesaid material bought by the complainant for the construction of his plot from the site. He did not lodge any report with the police regarding theft against said Kartar Singh nor he lodged any complaint with the Opposite Party that said Kartar Singh had taken away the aforesaid material bought by the complainant for the construction of his plot at the site. 
10. However, from the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Party allotted the plot in question  bearing No.A-276, khasra No. 65 ( measuring150 square yards) under  ‘Mall Mandi Scheme’ in Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar, to the complainant  fully knowing or without ascertaining the fact that area under the plot in question does not belong to the Opposite Party and received the entire price of the plot in question from the complainant in the year 2005 and executed the agreement of sale regarding the plot in question in favour of the complainant Ex.C2 and executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant Ex.C3 regarding the plot in question and the complainant had to spend Rs.72,000/- as  registration fee for the registration of the sale deed Ex.C3. The complainant had got prepared the site plan from the Architect and also paid fee to the Opposite Party for the approval/ sanction of the site plan Ex.C23 and also made arrangements of money for the construction of the plot in question, thereby the complainant had to spend lacks of rupees for this purpose, but the Opposite Party came out with simple excuse that the land of the plot allotted to the complainant does not belong to the Opposite Party. Such like acts are not expected from a prudent person i.e. opposite party. Not only this, the Opposite Party when came to know that the land of the plot allotted to the complainant does not belong to the Opposite Party, even then they did not make any effort to allot some another/ alternative plot to the complainant, till the filing of the present complaint on 15.4.2013 and even lateron . All this amounts to severe deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant.
11. Resultantly,  the complaint of the complainant is allowed as the Opposite Party was bound to hand over the actual possession of the plot in question within 2 years from the date of allotment/ deposit of the entire sale consideration by the complainant. The complainant had deposited the entire amount of Rs.4,52,250/- with the Opposite Party i.e. sale consideration on 10.9.2005, but the complainant was neither given plot, rather he was given plot of which the Opposite Party was not the owner, so Opposite Party is directed  to allot some alternative plot of same size to the complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite Party is also directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount of Rs.4,52,250/-  from 10.9.2007 (i.e. from two years after the date of deposit of the amount by the complainant i.e. 10.9.2005). Further the complainant due to the fault of the Opposite Party had spent Rs.72,000/- on the registration of the sale deed as is evident from the sale deed, copy of which is Ex.C3 and also paid huge amount to the Opposite Party for the approval/ sanction of the site plan Ex.C23 which were proved futile  as the plot allotted by the Opposite Party to the complainant was not the ownership of the Opposite Party, so the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant , as such the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.1 lac (One lac) to the complainant. Opposite Party is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.    Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 11-06-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member