DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.344 of 19-07-2011 Decided on 11-11-2011
Govind Ram, aged about 55 years, son of Sh. Lal Chand, Resident of House No.115, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Bathinda Development Authority, Bathinda, through its Chief Administrator. Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. N.P.Singh, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is NRI and is owner of Plot No.15C of 500 sq. yards situated at Model Town, Phase-3, Part-2, Bathinda and he paid all the installments to the opposite parties and nothing is due against him. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 for getting the sale deed executed of the above said plot and completed all the formalities as per advice of the opposite parties. He filled the Form given by the opposite parties and deposited all the Forms and documents with the opposite parties and deposited Rs.1,34,400/- in State Bank of India on 26.11.2010 in the name of opposite parties for purchasing the Stamp Paper. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties and tried to get the date for presentation of documents before the Sub Registrar, Bathinda but the opposite parties returned the documents to the complainant without giving any proper reply. The complainant requested many times to the opposite parties to execute the sale deed but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to execute the sale deed of the above said plot alongwith interest, cost and compensation. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has failed to complete the construction of plot within the stipulated period of three years as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. In fact, the complainant is not a real allotee of Plot No.15, Phase-III, Model Town, Bathinda rather he is a re-allotee. The complainant purchased the said plot from one Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh of Bathinda who had purchased the same from PUDA in open auction dated 06.08.2003 on the basis of terms and conditions of the auction as well as allotment letter No.10801 dated 14.10.2003. The complainant has not paid the dues despite of repeated letters and did not complete the formalities for execution of deed of plot. As per record of the opposite parties, an amount of Rs.4,81,415/- is due against the said plot as on 28.06.2011. The complainant has failed to complete the construction of plot within the stipulated period of three years and also failed to join SBOP branch Bathinda. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The main contention of the complainant is that he had deposited the amount of Rs.1,34,400/- on 26.11.2010 and had completed all the formalities despite that the opposite party No.2 has not got the sale deed executed on the plot bearing No.15C of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties and tried to get the date for presentation of documents before the Sub Registrar, Bathinda but the opposite parties returned the documents to the complainant. Despite repeated requests, the opposite parties have not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant has purchased the said plot from one Surjit Singh S/o Pritam Singh, Bathinda who had purchased the same from PUDA in open auction held on 06.08.2003 on the basis of terms and conditions of the auction as well as allotment letter No.10801 dated 14.10.2003. The complainant has not paid/ deposited the dues despite of various letters and did not complete the formalities for execution of deed of plot. As per record, Rs.4,81,415/- is due against the said plot as on 28.06.2011. The complainant has failed to deposit the said amount despite of various letters. He has failed to complete the construction of plot within the stipulated period of three years as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter as he has to complete the construction within a period of 3 years. 7. The plot purchased by the complainant has been sold by the opposite parties in open auction to original allottee Surjit Singh and on being successful bidder, Surjit Singh has been allotted the plot bearing No.15C vide Ex.R-3. The payment schedule has been mentioned in this letter. The original allottee had sold the said plot to the complainant. In the allotment letter itself at Sr. No.6 Extension Fee:- (i) If the construction on the plot is not completed within the time stipulated in para 5 above, extension in construction period would be granted subject to payment of Extension Fee as may be determined from time to time. However, extension in period of completion of building shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Estate Officer that the failure to complete the building within the stipulated period was due to a cause beyond the control of allottee. (ii) In case of non-payment or delayed payment of extension fee, in addition penalty at the following rates shall also be charged:- Sr. No. Delayed Period Rate of Penalty 1. Upto one year 10% 2. Between 1-3 years 20% 3. Between 3-5 years 50% 4. Between 5 years 100% Further, the condition No.5(1) i.e. for the construction of building is as follow:- “Construction on plot shall be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter after getting the building plans duly sanctioned from the concerned Estate Officer.” 8. The plot has been transferred to the complainant vide Ex.R-4. The complainant has given his affidavit Ex.R-5 to the effect that “I shall construct the building on the plot within the stipulated period, in accordance with the sanctioned building plan failing which I shall pay extension fee as determined by PUDA. The complainant has also given his affidavit Ex.R-6 dated 22.08.2005 to the effect that “I shall be liable to pay the required compounding fee in regard to all the compoundable violations and will demolish/after the non-compoundable violations which are existing in the building to bring it in accordance with the approved building plan.” He has also given the third affidavit Ex.R-7 to the effect that “I shall construct the building on the plot within the stipulated period, in accordance with the sanctioned building plan.” 9. The Re-allotment letter clearly shows that the complainant has himself accepted to abide by rules and regulations and all the conditions given by the opposite parties. The complainant has not constructed the plot within stipulated period of 3 years. The notice under condition No.11 has been issued to the complainant Ex.R-9, “According to condition No.11 of allotment letter, you had to construct the plot within a period of 3 years. According to report of J.E., you have not been constructed the plot till date. So, you do not follow the condition No.11 of allotment letter.” 10. The complainant has failed to construct the plot within stipulated period. He has purchased the plot from one Surjit Singh S/o Pritam Singh and the terms and conditions provided in the allotment letter, are binding on the complainant as he has stepped in the shoes of the original allottee. If due to any reason, he was unable to construct the plot within stipulated period, he should have deposited the extension fee for seeking relaxation period from the opposite parties but the complainant has not deposited any such amount and the amount of Rs.4,81,415/- is still pending towards the complainant. 11. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the complainant, they are distinguishable on facts and circumstances. 12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 11-11-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul) Member Member | 
