DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BATHINDA
C.C. No. 124 of 08-05-2019
Decided on : 26-05-2022
Lakhbir Singh son of Sh. Hari Singh, resident of 71V-A, Street No. 5-1/2, Guru Ark an Dev Nagar, # Ludhiana.
…...Complainant
Versus
Bathinda Development Authority (BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Chief Administrator/Estate Officer
.......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum :
Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President
Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.
Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member
Present :
For the complainant : Sh. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. N P Singh, Advocate
O R D E R
Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President
The complainant Lakhbir Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Bathinda Development Authority (BDA) (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that in the year 2012, opposite party invited applications for allotment of plots under different categories at PUDA Enclave (Sugar Mill Site), Budhladha, District Mansa. The scheme was accessible/susceptible on 27-09-2012 and was fastened/closed on 31-10-2012. The draw of lots was held by the opposite party on 15-01-2013. The complainant was allotted plot number 363 measuring 200 Sq. Yards. The letter of intent was issued on dated 26.02.2013 vide letter no. PUDA-Eo/2013/1872. After the issuance of LOI the complainant has already deposited a sum of rupees 300000.00 from the total amount of the plot i.e. rupees 1143000.00 but till date the opposite party did not initiated any development work at the site. The opposite party floated the scheme without clearing the title of the land of the site & also without obtaining the requisite permissions & approvals from the competent authorities to advertise, sale the plots and also to receive the consideration from the general public including the complainant. The work related to the basic amenities has even not started at the site. The complainant approached the opposite party numerous of times in order to know the status of start of development work as well as handing over the possession but to no positive response of any kind was received by the complainant.
It is also alleged that complainant made investigation personally. He was shocked to know that PUDA has delayed in providing allotment letter to complainant because of following reasons :-
a) The land of the said site does not belong to PUDA.
b) The machinery of the sugar mill was got shifted at very belated stage.
c) To misuse the funds derived and poised from complainant and other allottees.
d) Due to pending litigation with the sugar mill.
The allotment letter was issued in favour of complainant on dated 21-10-2016. The opposite party specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that construction on the plot has to be raised within three years from the date of issuance of allotment letter after getting the plans approved, demarcation in accordance with the building bye laws. Till date, the opposite party has failed to initiate any development work on the site and failed to install basic amenities on the site in question. Some of the works are still hanging, undecided and not started. These works are revealed as under :-
a) No OHSR has been constructed for water supply.
b) Neither the land was fixed for STP nor has any work been initiated to establish/construct and install the Sewerage Treatment Plant.
c) Till date opposite party failed to get the electricity connection and also failed in getting substation constructed.
d) There is no plantation along the roads, development of parks also lacking.
e) The old building structure i.e. sugar mill has not been demolished till date.
f) There is no space allotted for Commercial Zone, Dispensary, Club House, School and for parking as shown by the opposite party in the layout plan.
g) Failed to even initiate the construction work of Roads, Lanes and footpath. No provision has been made for installation of street lights.
h) Most importantly, there is no boundary wall got constructed. Hence the opposite party is putting safety and lives of the residents at stake. Further it may also lead to encroachment of the land of the site.
i) No rain water harvesting system has been installed.
j) Failed to provide even the basic amenities like Garbage Collection Centre/Bins and other civil amenities.
k) Failed to fill low lying area to prevent collection of water.
It is further pleaded that re-allotment letter (without the consent of complainant) was issued by the opposite party vide letter No. 953 dated 08-02-2018, wherein it was mentioned that due to some technical fault, the complainant has been allotted plot No. 363 measuring 200 sq. yards in the year 2013. Now rectifying the error and re-planning the whole site, the plot number has been changed to plot No. 801.
It is also pleaded that no prior consent of the complainant and prior approval of the Chief Town Planner/Distinct Town Planner were received for re-planning of the layout plan of the site.
In support of his contentions, complainant has quoted some case law, reference of which is not considered necessary for the sake of brevity.
On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. By filing this complaint, the complainant has prayed for following directions to the opposite party :-
(i) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, harassment, botheration and humiliation;
(ii) To return back a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.
(iii) To pay Rs. 21,000/- as cost of litigation.
(v) To pay any other additional, consequential or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has concealed material and true facts. He has not purchased the plot in question for the purpose of residence nor he applied for refund of money at any time. The complainant has applied for plot for commercial purposes. The possession of plots has already been delivered to all concerned allotees/re-allotees after completion of development work on the site. All the basic amenities are provided.
Opposite Party has also asserted that the complainant is not consumer. He has not applied for refund of amount. There is a set procedure for surrender of allotted plot and for refund of deposited amount. The complainant has never exhausted that procedure. Hence, he has no cause of action or locus standi to file the complaint. Jurisdiction of this Forum is also barred u/s 174 of PUDA Act.
On Merits, it is not disputed that opposite party invited applications for allotment of residential plots. The complainant applied for a plot of 200 Sq. yards in the said scheme and deposited 10% cost of plot i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/-. It is admitted that draw of lots was held on 15-01-2013 and complainant was successful in the said draw of lots. Issuance of Letter of Intent and deposit of 15% amount of plot i.e. Rs. 1,80,000/- (Wrongly written as Rs.1,18,000/-) on 26-3-2013 is admitted.
It is asserted that opposite party has already completed all the development work and issued allotment letters and plot numbers to the allotees. All the basic amenities are provided. The possession of the plots has already been delivered to the concerned allotee/re-allotees, after completion of work at the site. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence Photocopy of voucher(Ex. C-1), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-2), photocopy of ledger (Ex. C-3) , photocopy of allotment letter (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-5), his affidavit dated 04-05-2019(Ex. C-6).
In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 3-7-2019 of Uday Deep Singh (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of public notice (Ex. OP- 1/2), photocopy of list containing five pages (Ex. OP-1/3), photographs (Ex. OP-1/4 to Ex. OP-1/13) , photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/14)and closed the evidence.
The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their version as pleaded in their respective pleadings.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
Of course, it is not disputed that complainant applied for plot of 200 Sq. Yards and initially he was allotted plot No. 363 in the above said scheme. Letter of Intent was issued on 26-02-2013 (Ex. C-2). After issuance of Letter of Intent, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the total amount of the plot i.e. Rs. 11,43,000/-. Allotment letter dated 21-10-2016 (Ex. C-4) was issued to complainant. Thereafter plot number of complainant was changed to 801 measuring 200 Sq. Yards vide re-allotment letter dated 08-02-2018 (Ex. C-5).
It is admitted case of parties that possession of plot was to be delivered after completion of developement work at site or 18 months from date of issue of Allotment Letter whichever is earlier. In case in hand Allotment Letter (Ex. C-4) was issued on dated 21.10.2016. In this way at the most possession of plot was to be delivered upto 20.4.2018 but surprisingly vide letter dated 8.2.2018 (Ex. C-5) opposite party had intimated to complainant that after re-draw dated 17.1.2018 Plot No.801 was Alloted to complainant in place of already alloted Plot No. 363. It is pleaded case of complainant that his consent was never taken by opposite party while doing re-allotment of plot , so complainant cannot be forced to take plot not of his choice and liking. Plot number of plot of complainant was changed by opposite party vide letter dated 08-2-2018 without consent of complainant which clearly proves that said project of the opposite party was incomplete on that date.
Moreover, surprisingly opposite party did not ask for remaining amount required to be deposited by complainant in document dated 17.01.2018 (Ex. C-5). So its seems that fact regarding handing over of possession to complainant only mentioned as a formality as opposite party have failed to bring on file any project completion reports from concerned departments. So complainant cannot be left to wait for indefinite time to receive possession of plot.
Similar matter under same scheme has been decided by Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in the case titled Raman Goyal Vs. PUDA (now BDA) CC No. 865 of 2019 decided on 30-06-2020 wherein it has been held :-
“..Opposite party is deficient in service in delaying the delivery of possession for such a long period. The complainant is nowhere at fault in complying with the terms and conditions of the Allotment Letter, but opposite party is definitely at fault by not adhering to the terms and conditions thereof. We are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to refund of his deposited amount with compensation and litigation expenses.”
Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1678 of 2018 decided on 14-2-2019 case titled Estate Officer PUDA (now BDA) Vs Kewan Kumar Goyal has observed in similar matter that in case the possession is not offered within a reasonable time and when they are not in a position to tell that when the possession will be delivered then the order of refund passed by District Forum is justified.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Govindan Raghavan (2019) 2 RCR (Civil) 738 has opined in similar matter that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid with reasonable amount of interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund.
Therefore keeping in view the facts, circumstances, evidence and the opinion rendered in the aforesaid authorities, this Commission is of the considered opinion that non-completion of said project with basic amenities in time is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party is directed to refund to complainant Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund.
The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced :
26-05-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
