BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 571 of 2013

Date of Institution: 19.08.2013

Date of Decision: 09.12.2015

Sh.Kanwar Rajinder Singh son of Sh.Ghansham Singh, resident of Katra Moti Ram Inside Hathi Gate, Amritsar.  

Complainant

Versus

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

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. Rakesh 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.Kanwar Rajinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that a plot No.13-B in Mall Mandi Scheme, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar was allotted to Ghansham Singh (father of the complainant) on 10.06.2005 and the same was later on transferred in the name of complainant on 22.8.2006. The entire amount of the plot Rs.6,03,000/- was paid by the complainant. Complainant alleges that Opposite Party assured that the possession of the plot  alongwith basic amenities would be given to the allottee within a period of 3 years. The possession of the plot in question was given much later i.e. in the year 2010. Previously, the complainant filed complaint against Opposite Party which was allowed vide order dated 7.3.2011 and the Opposite Party  was directed to provide the basic amenities to the scheme where the plot of complainant is situated, within a period of 6 months, but the Opposite Party did not provide the basic amenities and the complainant filed execution application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act which was allowed  and the Opposite Party was imposed fine of Rs.7000/-. As the basic amenities were not provided by the Opposite Party, so the complainant again filed another execution application under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, which is pending before this Forum. Even Kewal Krishan, JE of the Opposite Party on 16.7.2013 suffered statement that necessary  amenities would be completed to the scheme in which the plot of complainant is situated, within 4 months. Opposite Party has not provided  the basic amenities to the plot of the complainant. Opposite Party has received total amount  of plot and they are enjoying the amount and interest thereon and the complainant has been deprived of basic amenities to his plot. Delay of 9 years in giving possession alongwith basic amenities is not justifiable on the part of the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that as such, the complainant is fully entitled to have interest @ 18% per annum on the total deposited amount which the Opposite Party has been enjoying illegally. The complainant also served legal notice dated 19.7.2013 upon the Opposite Party requesting them to pay the interest, but in vain. The aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Party tantamount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and also caused tremendous mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant which has necessitated complainant to file this instant complaint. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay interest @ 18% per annum on total deposited amount of plot from the date of deposit till providing of necessary amenities to the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant earlier filed a complaint on the same cause of action, which has already been decided by this Forum vide order dated 7.3.2011 and the complainant had further filed execution application regarding the said order passed by this Forum, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no lawful cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party. 90%  basic amenities have already been provided to the allottees of Mall Mandi Scheme. The possession of the property has already been given to the complainant. Non construction charges have already been waived to the complainant as per court order. Moreover, there is no term or condition of giving the interest over the amounts paid by the allottees. The complainant has habit of filing false complaints against the Opposite Party in order to gain the advantage. The complainant had already filed a complaint on the ground of similar cause of action, which has already been decided by this Forum and two execution applications qua to said order have also been  decided by this Forum.  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.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Rishi, Chairman of the Opposite Party Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP16 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 both the parties, it is clear that plot No.13-B in Mall Mandi Scheme, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar was allotted to Ghansham Singh on 10.06.2005 which was later on transferred in the name of complainant on 22.8.2006. The original allottee paid the entire amount of the plot Rs.6,03,000/- vide last receipt dated 5.9.2005. Complainant alleges that Opposite Party assured that the possession of the plot  alongwith basic amenities would be given to the allottee within a period of 3 years. The possession of the plot in question was given much later i.e. in the year 2010. Previously, the complainant filed complaint against Opposite Party which was allowed vide order dated 7.3.2011 and the Opposite Party  was directed to provide the basic amenities to the scheme where the plot of complainant is situated, within a period of 6 months, but the Opposite Party did not provide the basic amenities and the complainant filed execution application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act which was allowed  and the Opposite Party was imposed fine of Rs.7000/-. As the basic amenities were not provided by the Opposite Party, so the complainant again filed another execution application under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, which is pending before this Forum. Even Kewal Krishan, JE of the Opposite Party on 16.7.2013 suffered statement that necessary  amenities would be completed to the scheme in which the plot of complainant is situated, within 4 months. Opposite Party has not provided  the basic amenities to the plot of the complainant. Opposite Party has received total amount  of plot and they are enjoying the amount and interest thereon and the complainant has been deprived of basic amenities to his plot. Delay of 9 years in giving possession alongwith basic amenities is not justifiable on the part of the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that as such, the complainant is fully entitled to have interest @ 18% per annum on the total deposited amount, which the Opposite Party has been enjoying illegally. The complainant also served legal notice dated 19.7.2013 upon the Opposite Party requesting them to pay the interest, but in vain. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. The complainant earlier filed 2 complaints i.e. first complaint No. 596 of 2009 which was decided by this Forum on 1.12.2009 vide order Ex.OP14 which was partly allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to give demarcation of the plot in question to the complainant within 30 days and after the demarcation, after the site plan is submitted by the complainant for approval same shall be approved within next 30 days and the Opposite Party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- and no order in that complaint was passed with regard to interest or the amenities to the scheme in which the plot of complainant is situated. The complainant filed another complaint bearing No. 945 of 2010 which was decided by this Forum on 7.3.2011 vide order Ex.OP15. Said complaint was also allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to provide the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, electricity, etc. in the scheme  in which the plot of complainant is situated, within 6 months from the date of order and the complainant was again awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation, payable by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party submitted that basic amenities have been provided to the allottees of Mal Mandi Scheme, Amritsar. Non construction charges have already been waived to the complainant and other allottees of that scheme as per court order. The possession of the plot in question has already been delivered to the complainant in the year 2010 and the complainant submitted site plan for the construction of his house on the  plot in question which was also sanctioned by the Opposite Party in the year 2010, but the complainant did not raise construction over the plot in question. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that to avoid the payment of penalty for non construction charges, the complainant has been filing the  false complaints against Opposite Party one after the other in order to gain advantage. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that in the earlier complaint, the complainant never applied for interest on the amount deposited by the complainant. As per the law, laid down by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, both compensation and interest can not be awarded on the same time. The complainant was fully aware that he can not  get compensation as well as interest through same complaint, so he filed this 3^rd complaint to get interest on the deposited amount. Whereas he has already got compensation earlier by filing two complaints as stated above. So, this complaint has been mischievously filed by the complainant to get the claim which he could not get legally in the earlier complaints; further this complaint has been filed just to avoid penalty for non construction charges of his plot. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that now the basic amenities have already been provided to the scheme i.e. Mal Mandi Scheme in which the plot of complainant is situated. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant never made any efforts to raise the construction over the plot in question. He never applied for sewerage connection. He never applied for water supply connection or electricity connection despite the fact that all these amenities have already been provided to the scheme in which plot of the complainant is situated. So, this complaint has been filed just to harass the  Opposite Party. Moreover, no complaint can be filed on the same ground and on the same cause of action repeatedly i.e. for the 3^rd time as the present complaint has been filed 3^rd time by the complainant on the same cause of action between the same parties as two complaints on the same cause of action regarding same matter in dispute between the same parties have already been decided by this Forum. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is against the law and natural justice. Moreover, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that plot No. 13-B in Mall Mandi Scheme i.e. Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar was allotted to Ghansham Singh on 10.6.2005 which was   later on transferred in the name of complainant on 22.8.2006. The original allottee paid the entire amount of the plot Rs.6,03,000/- vide last receipt dated 5.9.2005. The possession of the plot  alongwith basic amenities, was to be  given to the allottee within a period of 3 years.  Actual possession alongwith demarcation was not given by the Opposite Party to the complainant. So, the complainant filed complaint bearing No. 596 of 2009 which was decided by this Forum on 1.12.2009 vide order Ex.OP14, which was partly allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to give demarcation  of the plot in question to the complainant within 30 days and after the demarcation, if the site plan is submitted by the complainant for approval, the same shall be approved within next 30 days. Opposite Party was also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- and no order was passed in that complaint with regard to interest or amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, though claimed by the complainant. Resultantly, Opposite Party gave actual possession and demarcation of the plot in the year 2010 and also approved/ sanctioned the site plan submitted by the complainant of that plot to raise the construction over the plot in question, by the Opposite Party in the year 2010. So, the Opposite Party complied with the order dated 1.12.2009 Ex.OP14 passed by this Forum.
9. Thereafter, the complainant filed another complaint bearing  No. 945 of 2010 which was decided vide order dated 7.3.2011 Ex.OP15. Said complaint was also allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to provide the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, etc.  for the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, within 6 months from the date of order and the complainant was again awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation payable by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party submitted that basic amenities such as water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, etc. have been provided to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated and the non construction charges have already been waived  to the complainant and other allottees of that scheme. But now the basic amenities have already been provided to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, the complainant is at liberty to raise construction over his plot, but the complainant did not raise construction over the plot in question and just to avoid the payment of penalty for non construction charges, the complainant has been filing the complaints one after the other.
10. It may be mentioned here that before filing the present complaint, the execution application No. 129 of 2011 was decided by this Forum vide order dated 29.8.2012. Said execution application was allowed and the respondent/ Opposite Party  was ordered  to pay fine  of Rs.7000/- out of which, the complainant was paid Rs.5000/-.
11. Thereafter, the complainant filed another execution application No. 6 of 2013 which was decided by this Forum on 2.1.2014 in which Sh. Satinderjit Singh, XEN got recorded his statement that the opposite party shall provide all the basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant/applicant is situated by 30.4.2014. So in that execution application, this Forum held that the opposite party still has not provided the basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. Resultantly Sh. Sandeep Rishi, PCS ,Chairman of the Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar was held guilty and he was ordered  to pay fine of Rs. 10000/- u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act vide order dated 2.1.2014 and out of that amount of fine, the complainant was paid Rs.7500/-. Thereafter, the complainant filed another execution application No. 47 of 2014 which was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 9.12.2015 holding that basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, etc.  have already been provided by the Opposite Party to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. But the complainant has not raised the construction over his plot  despite getting sanctioned the site plan. All this history of this case proves on record that the complainant is in the habit of filing one complaint after the other, regarding the same cause of action between the same parties as well as execution applications side by side without making any effort to raise construction over the plot despite getting the site plan sanctioned/ approved from the Opposite Party in the year 2010 after taking actual possession and demarcation of his plot in the year 2010. The complainant was granted compensation in both the earlier complaints. The complainant never prayed for interest on the amount deposited by the complainant in the earlier complaints, fully knowing that both the reliefs i.e. interest as well as compensation can not be granted at the same time. In the earlier complaints i.e. complaint No. 596 of 2009 which was decided by this Forum on 1.12.2009 and complaint bearing No. 945 of 2010 which was decided vide order dated 7.3.2011, the complainant never prayed for interest on the amount deposited by the complainant against plot in question, the possession of which he has already taken after demarcation in the year 2010. He had received compensation in both the said complaints. Now the complainant has filed this complaint only to get interest on the amount deposited by the complainant which he has never been prayed for in the earlier complaints. No doubt, the principles of res-judicata and order 2 rule 2 CPC are not applicable to the proceedings before Consumer Forum, but general principles of natural justice  are applicable to the proceedings before Consumer Forum. The complainant has intentionally not prayed for interest on the amount he had deposited with the Opposite Party in both the earlier complaints and he had only prayed for compensation fully knowing that both compensation and interest can not be granted simultaneously for the same cause of action and the complainant has already received compensation in both the complaints. Now the complainant has filed the present complaint just to get interest on the amount deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Party and he has not prayed for compensation fully knowing that both these reliefs can not be granted simultaneously. This relief of interest, the complainant should have prayed for in the earlier complaints. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.Ramareddy, II(2006) CPJ 339 (NC) that where the interest on the amount is allowed, the awarding of compensation separately not justified.  
12. The complainant has got the possession of the plot in question after demarcation in the year 2010. He had also got site plan of his plot sanctioned/ approved from the Opposite Party in the year 2010 to raise the construction over his plot and now in the execution application bearing No. 47 of 2014, this Forum vide order dated 9.12.2015 has held that basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, electricity, etc. have already been provided by the Opposite Party to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated and that owner of the plot bearing No.B-66 which is just opposite to the plot of the complainant has been raising construction over his plot, but the complainant has not made any effort for raising the construction over his plot despite getting the site plan sanctioned/ approved from the Opposite Party in the year 2010. Opposite Party has sanctioned/ spent a sum of Rs.2664.81 lacs on the development i.e to provide basic amenities to the allottees of the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated and the Opposite Party has proved  on record that basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable road, etc. have already been provided to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, as is evident from the photographs produced by the Opposite Party Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP18 duly proved by Sh.Mohan Lal Lochan, Junior Engineer, Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar-Opposite Party as well as Sh.Kewal Krishan, Junior Engineer, of Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar  and even the owner of the plot bearing No.B-66 just opposite to the plot of the complainant has been raising construction over his plot, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party has already provided the basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated.
13. Ld.counsel for the complainant pointed out that the possession without the amenities is no possession in the eyes of law and he submitted that Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 146 of 2009 titled as Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Narain Dass Budhi Raja decided on 9.1.2015 upheld the interest awarded on the amount deposited by each complainant and also Rs.2 lacs as compensation in each of the complaints, so the complainant should also be awarded interest in the present case. We have gone through the ruling cited by ld.counsel for the complainant and has come to the conclusion that the facts of those complaints in the aforesaid ruling are  different from the facts of the present case because in those case matter arose out of the auction of the Shop cum Flat complex. Even in those cases, the possession was not given to the complainants. Moreover, it was held in the aforesaid cases that amenities were not provided. The affidavits were filed by the complainants in which they submitted work which had been executed, belongs to Adarsh Nagar, Mani Majra which is at a distance of 2 Kilometer from the sites in question. Whereas in the present case, the complainant was  already given possession by deciding earlier two complaints regarding same subject matter in dispute between the same parties. Moreover, the possession alongwith demarcation of the plot in question was given to the complainant in the year 2010 and even the site plan of the plot in question of the complainant, was already approved by the Opposite Party in the year 2010 and thereafter, the complainant was also compensated while deciding earlier two Complaints and two  Execution Applications. Moreover, those plots were commercial one and the penal interest was ordered to be charged from the allottees in case of delayed payment. But in the present case there was no such provision for charging penal interest. Moreover, in those cases, the shop cum flat were auctioned at very high rates in open auction whereas in the present case, the plot was allotted to the complainant  in Lucky Draw at reasonable/ fixed price rates. So the ruling of the aforesaid appeals decided by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the present complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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: 09.12.2015.                                                                (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                           President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                      Member                         Member