BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 363 of 2014

Date of Institution: 08.07.2014

Date of Decision: 06.06.2016  

Saurabh Jain son of Sh.Surender Kumar Jain, resident of Gali Chandruhera, Lohar Bazar, Bhiwani (Haryana), presently residing in 61, Bajrang Bali Nagar, Near Agarsain Chowk, Bhiwani (Haryana)

Complainant

Versus

Amritsar Improvement Trust, Near Hotel Mohan International, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through its Chairman/ Executive Officer.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section  12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Saurabh Jain has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the  complainant is consumer of Opposite Party being allottee/ owner of Plot No. 367B with area of 250 square yards, which was originally allotted in the draw of lots on 2.9.2009 and was allotted vide allotment letter No. AIT/10259 dated 30.12.2009, at 340 Development Scheme of Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (Mall Mandi Scheme), G.T.Road, Amritsar of Opposite Party against total price of Rs.16,50,000/-. The complainant was to make the payment of the price of the plot as per schedule in the allotment letter, and in case of delayed payment, an interest @ 16% per annum was to be charged by the Opposite Party. Accordingly, the complainant made payment of the installments as per allotment letter, depositing interest on delayed payment as well, as per terms of allotment, and no amount of price of plot is outstanding. But despite assurance of the Opposite Party that possession of the plot shall be given within 30 days of issue of allotment letter after execution of the agreement to sell,  no possession of plot has been given by Opposite Party so far, as the area is still barren land and no demarcation of plots done so far. The complainant wants to construct his dream house over the plot mentioned herein, but is constrained to construct the same  as the development  work in the said colony has not been started by the Opposite Party so far. As per the scheme, the Opposite Party was to provide all basic amenities for the purpose of inhabitation of the allottees of the plots, who construct the houses over there. These amenities include boundary wall, water supply, sewerage, storm water channels, roads & electricity and other amenities, which are as per norms for the purpose of sale of plots in the developed colony. Moreover, for the purpose of inhabitation in the colony, basic amenities like sewerage treatment plant, and continuous water supply, storm water channels is a must, and for the purpose of security of the inhabitants, boundary wall of the colony has to be there. Till today, the development work in this colony of Opposite Party is not started enabling possession of plots to allottees to construct houses and live there in good inhabitation condition, a few to mention that there is no sewerage system in the colony, and no sewerage treatment plant has been installed so far, which is a primary condition of the Punjab Pollution Control Board for the purpose of any residential colony to start sale of plots. Even clearance from Punjab Pollution Control Board was not sought for the purpose of starting the township, which is mandatory for all colonizers. Despite the project of the Opposite Party being incomplete, due to which, complainant is not in a position to construct house over the plot in question. Even a letter under RTI Act dated 11.12.2013 of the complainant did not bring any result. Said act of the Opposite Party of not providing possession of plot even after more than 4 years, and not providing any development to the area of plot of the complainant as per original scheme, and further not making the area inhabitable, is gross deficiency in service for which Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant for harassment as well as mental agony and financial loss. Due to the delayed development of the area, which is handicap for the complainant to construct the same, the complainant is also suffering financial loss as well, due to escalation in the cost of construction for the period the area remains under developed. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs vide instant complaint.

a)       To direct the Opposite Party to remove the deficiency in service by giving possession of the plot without any delay, and fully develop the area immediately.

b)      To compensate the complainant to the extent and pay interest @18% per annum on the price of the plot.

c)       To compensate the complainant for harassment, mental agony and financial loss due to the acts of the Opposite Party as explained above, to the tune of Rs.10 lacs and pay costs of complaint to  the tune of Rs.22,000/-.      

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum, hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief; that there is no lawful cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering Opposite Party. On merits, the allotment of the plot in question in favour of the complainant is admitted fact, but it is submitted that the complainant has not approached  the Opposite Party for the purpose of execution of the regular agreement between the parties qua to said allotment. The complainant has already been provided all the facilities and the work is also in progress. Anything which is not specifically admitted shall be deemed to be denied. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. It is the complainant who has not approached the Opposite Party for the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour qua to the allotment of the plot in question.      Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant made in the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced  copy of allotment letter Ex.C2, copy of receipt dated 29.6.2010 Ex.C3, copy of receipt dated 29.9.2011 Ex.C4, copy of receipt dated 5.9.2012 Ex.C5, copy of receipt dated 1.10.2012 Ex.C6, copy of receipt dated 28.2.2014 Ex.C7, application under RTI to EO Ex.C8, copy of appeal under RTI to Deputy Director, Local Government Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

4.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Rishi, Chairman Ex.OP1, list of tender containing two pages Ex.OP2, list of tender containing three pages Ex.OP3 and close the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties  and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       On 2.3.2016, Sh.Saurabh Jain complainant appeared in person in this Forum and made the statement on oath that Opposite Party has delivered the possession of the plot No. 367B, Mall Mandi Scheme, at site today i.e. 2.3.2016. 

7.       From the appreciation of evidence on record, it becomes evident that the  plot in dispute was allotted to the complainant vide draw of lots on 2.9.2009 which was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter No. AIT/10259 dated 30.12.2009, at 340 Development Scheme of Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (Mall Mandi Scheme), G.T.Road, Amritsar of Opposite Party against total price of Rs.16,50,000/-. It is also the case of the complainant that the payment of the price of the plot was to be made as per  schedule in the allotment letter, and in case of delayed payment, an interest @ 16% per annum was to be charged by the Opposite Party. It is also the case of the complainant that he has made payment of the installments as per allotment letter, deposited interest on delayed payment as well as per terms of allotment, and no amount of price of plot is outstanding/ payable by the complainant. This fact has not been denied by the Opposite Party in their written reply. It is the further case of the complainant that the possession of the disputed plot has not been delivered to him despite various requests made by him from time to time, to the Opposite Party. As a matter of fact, the possession of the plot in dispute was to be delivered within 30 days of issue of allotment letter. Allotment letter Ex.C2 has been issued on 30.12.2009, but the possession was delivered only on 2.3.2016 i.e. during the pendancy of the present complaint.  It is the case of the complainant that he was to raise the construction over the plot in dispute, but due to the fact that the possession of the plot in dispute  was not delivered to him, the complainant could not raise any construction over the disputed plot so far. The  complainant has suffered mental tension, physical injury as well as financial loss on that account. It is further case of the complainant that certain amenities as per agreement to sell  in dispute, have not been provided  at the spot. But it is the case of the Opposite Party that all the facilities promised under the agreement  to sell in dispute have already been provided  at the spot and work of certain amenities was in progress at the spot. This fact has not been denied by the complainant. But however, fact remains that the Opposite Party has failed to deliver the possession of the disputed plot in favour of the complainant after the passage of 30 days of  issue or either of allotment & execution of the agreement to sell in dispute. On that account, the complainant is entitled to be compensated.

8.       Once it is held that the Opposite Party is deficient in service, the complainant is entitled to grant of compensation. The complainant has requested for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, but in our opinion, the compensation asked for is quite exhorbitant & excessive. It is none of the intention of the legislature to enrich one party at the cost of the other while awarding damages/ compensation rather the intention is to offset the loss occasioned by the aggrieved party due to the act or omission of the other party. The amount of compensation has to be reasonable  & in proportionate to the loss occasioned.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation is quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lac) which would be sufficient to offset the loss  of the complainant in this case & we allow compensation  accordingly. The awarded amount shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full & final payment of costs. The costs of the complaint are assessed at Rs.2,000/-. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 06.06.2016.                                                         (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                                    President

                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member

hrg