Complainant Nazar Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties for resumption of flat shop no.36 and to handover the possession. Opposite parties be further directed to accept remaining payment of the flat/shop i.e. 1,75,964/- alongwith interest (if any) and to perform his part of the contract by accepting the installments. Opposite parties be next directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to him for causing mental tension, harassment and financial loss to him and any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that a plot measuring 122.37 sq. yards bearing shop cum flat no.36 at Shastri Nagar Batala for a total consideration of price of Rs.2,45,964/- was originally allotted to one Nishan Singh son of Bua Singh resident of village Dharowal Tehsil Batala and latter on it was transferred to complainant’s wife namely Balbir Kaur  as his wife had purchased the same. An amount of Rs.70,000/- had already been deposited in the account of the Batala Improvement Trust out of the total price of plot was Rs.2,45,964/- by him. His wife was suffering from disease and died on 10.4.1998. He had incurred huge amount on the treatment of his wife at Guru Nanak Hospital Amritsar and was not in a position to spend any amount on installment of the shop cum flat. He had very hard time and was not in a position incurred any amount on the installments of the flat/shop. He had also raised loan of amount to Rs.2,50,000/- as he needed so much money to survive in his life. ICICI bank Amritsar had also falsely claiming that he and his sons has got loan for amount to Rs.5,00,000/- from its branch which gave huge mental tension to him. The said ICICI Bank Amritsar has also launched recovery proceeding against him in DRT Chandigarh and then he challenged the said loan transaction to be result of fraud in the Civil Court Batala and a case titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. ICICI Bank is pending in the court of Sh.Chandan Hans Civil Judge Junior Division Batala and next date of hearing is 29.10.2016. On November 2014 and January 2015, he approached the opposite parties that he was ready to deposit the principal amount alongwith interest but they did not give satisfactory reply. He has next pleaded that he approached the Department of Local Self Body at Chandigarh and requested to interfere and vide its letter no.memo no.5/43/16(4) 4SS2 directed the opposite parties to decide the matter afresh but the opposite parties till today did not call him nor they issued any notice to him to appear in the opposite party rather sent a letter dated 1.8.2016 to him and he was shocked to read the letter in which it was mentioned that the money which was paid has already been forfeited by the opposite parties without any notice. The opposite parties has resumed his flat/shop without any notice to him and he further came to know that amount of Rs.70,000/- has been forfeited by the opposite parties without any notice to him which is against the natural justice. The opposite parties broke the locks of the shop cum flat in his absence and took illegal possession of the flat/shop and locked the flat/shop with their own locker which is illegal and against the law. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply submitting therein that Nishan Singh deposited Rs.70,000/- on 01.03.1993 out of the total price of the plot but thereafter his wife failed to deposit the remaining installments as agreed by her at the time of getting the said plot transferred on her name. The opposite party served notice upon Balbir Kaur on 25.01.1995 and 06.07.2010 and on 21.12.2010 but the report was received from the postal authorities that the said Balbir Kaur has expired. They served a notice to the legal heirs of Balbir  Kaur through their sevadar but no amount was deposited by the legal heirs of the said Balbir Kaur. The officials of the opposite party met the complainant on 18.5.2012 and asked him to be present in the office of the opposite party on 23.05.2012 and the complainant moved a representation to the effect that as her wife died due to cancer and huge amount has been spent on her treatment hence he could not deposit the amount with opposite party and the opposite party directed the complainant to furnish the copy of death certificate alongwith details of expenditure on treatment. The complainant was again directed to furnish the said papers vide letter no.1166/B.I.T./12 dated 14.9.2012 and the complainant vide his request dated 17.10.2012 undertook to furnish the said documents on or before 26.10.2012 but he did not furnish the same. Another notice was sent to the complainant vide letter no.167 dated 07.02.2013 the complainant was asked to furnish the death certificate etc but the complainant did not furnish any document nor he deposited any dues with the opposite party, however the opposite party passed a resolution on 23.04.2013 that they sympathetically considering the case of the complainant after the death of the purchaser the legal heirs be given another chance to submit their proof of being legal heir and also to deposit the dues but the said agenda point was canceled by the Hon’ble Director Local Bodies vide their letter dated 4.3.2014. Thereafter the opposite party vide point number 4 dated 12.11.2014 passed the matter to resume the shop cum flat and to forfeit the deposited amount and to sell the same through auction.  It has been next submitted that the wife of the complainant expired in the year 1998 but the complainant failed to provide the copy of her death certificate and expenditure incurred for her treatment on many occasions and several reminders were served. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.  

5.       Baljit Singh clerk, of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-12 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have intently perused and examined the pleadings/averments, documents/evidence as per the complaint/ the OP’s written reply in the back-drop of the arguments supported by the superior court judgments as put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides. However, we find that the complainant has presently sought relief by way of re-allotment of the allegedly ‘resumed’ shop-cum-flat that was duly allotted in the name of his wife who has since demised on account of ‘cancer’. The complainant has expressed his several difficulties that prevented him to repay the remaining instalments but has also expressed his willingness to pay the balance etc.

7.       The OP Trust has expressed its inability to accept the previous balance instalments on account of the changed ‘price structure’ and ‘market value’ of the property. However, we find that at one stage the OP Trust has been ready to conduct negotiations with the present complainant on the issue of acceptance of the balance instalments but later retracted for of some undisclosed reasons. Although, none of the parties has produced the Sale/ Allotment Agreement depicting the original terms of the same and as such we are not inclined to adjudicate the undisclosed contract issues on the matter in issue. 

8.       We understand that the complainant has been in urgent need of funds for medical treatment etc but that does not entitle him to an out of the way relief sans sanctity of law. However, he is entitled to a patient ‘hearing’ as per the governing laws of Trust Allotments and an amicable settlement within the Trust Rules and Regulations framed for such like situations.

9.       Thus, in the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint can be best disposed of by directing the opposite party Trust to summon the present complainant upon his filing of the relevant request (with all available evidence) to them and decide the same judiciously as per the applicable rules to the allotment agreement and to further convey its final decision to him within 45 days of these orders. However, we set the complainant at liberty to avail of the present directives within 15 days (of the orders) or to avail of any other remedy in law of his choice and advice as per the procedure as established in law.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned parties free of charges and the file be consigned to records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                              President

ANNOUNCED:                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)                       

December 11,2017.                                                  Member                                       

*MK*