Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/69

DEEPAK GROVER - Complainant(s)

Versus

E.O. PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       69

Date of Institution:   8.03.2017

Date of Decision :    11.09.2017

1. Deepak Grover aged 37 years, s/o Sushil Kumar.
2. Rekha aged 35 years w/o Deepak Grover, both r/o Mohalla Telian, Near Jatinder Chowk, Faridkot.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer.
2. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, (PUDA) Bathinda through its Estate Officer, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali, through its Chief Administrator.  

  ....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.

                  

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.17,67,675/-alongwith interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses .

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OPs launched a scheme for sale of residential plots in SDE residence, Faridkot on free hold basis and invited applications from general public for auction and under said scheme, plot no. 8 measuring 200 square yards was allotted to one Gagan Bajaj and as per Scheme, Ops were to deliver possession of plot to the vendee and to develop the area and provide basic amenities such as roads, streets, water supply, sewerage and electricity supply etc in said area and sale deed was to be executed in favour of allottee within 90 days of payment of entire money and thereafter, allottee was to start construction on plot within three years. It is submitted that with the consent of OPs, said Gagan Bajaj after completing all requisite formalities, transferred the said plot to complainants and they paid transfer fee of Rs.37,750/-to OPs and also paid all instalments of said plot by 24.02.2014 and in May, 2014, complainant requested Ops to execute the registration of plot in question in the name of complainants and also to deliver the possession of same to complainants, but Ops sent reply to complainant stating that sale deed cannot be executed in favour of complainants as matter is under consideration. After that complainants approached Ops and made several requests to them to execute registration in their favour and to deliver the possession of plot to them, but all in vain. Letters dated 11.11.2016 and 17.01.2017 written by complainants to Ops with request to execute registration in their favour and to deliver the possession of plot to them or to refund their entire money, bore no fruit.  Complainants made many requests to OPs to refund their entire amount with interest, but they did not pay any heed to listen to their requests. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great loss to him for which he has prayed for compensation alongwith main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                        On receipt of notice, OPs appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and no cause of action arises against Ops. Moreover, as per condition no. 27 of terms and conditions of allotment letter that in case of any dispute regarding allocation, it shall be referred to sole Arbitrator/Chief Administrator PUDA, Mohali and award passed by that authority shall be final and binding upon the parties. Further averred that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and present complaint deserves dismissal. However on merits, OP have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part, but it is admitted by OPs that they launched a scheme for development of colony and a plot of 200 square yards was allotted to Gagan Bajaj vide letter dt 8.12.2010, but it is totally denied that complainants ever asked them to deliver the possession of said plot to them. The possession of plot has already been delivered to complainants. It is admitted that complainants wrote letter to them for execution of sale deed, but that could not be done due to the reason that file was pending with Chief Architect, Punjab for consideration regarding security threat to Sessions House, Faridkot and any construction in that area is a threat to the security of Sessions House. Ld counsel for Ops brought before the Forum that site in question where plot of complainants is located is situated adjoining the official residence of District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot and any construction in that area may be a threat to security of Sessions House and therefore, Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court vide letter dt 4.12.2012 has restrained to make any construction in that area and due to this reason, permission for construction could not be given to complainants. It is admitted that application dt 15.05.2014 is received from complainants for execution of sale deed, but that is under consideration. It is asserted that after directions dt 4.12.2012 by Hon’ble High Court regarding construction at site in dispute, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 3.12.2014 in Civil Writ Petition No.12630 of 2012 regarding construction at site stated that  in view of said facts, the letter dt 4.12.2012 is quashed. Since, the petition could not raise construction for no fault, the petitioner shall not be charged extended fee if he completes the construction within eighteen months, but complainant never raised any construction. It is also admitted by Ops that vide letter dt 11.11.2016, complainant requested them for cancellation of allotment of plot and prayed for refund of money, but same was not permissible after payment of full price. It is averred that complainant has not suffered any loss due to OPs and complainant is not entitled to recover the claim amount or damages from OPs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-14 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Nishi Kalotara, Estate Officer, PUDA as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to OP-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                                      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

8                                                                 The case of the complainants is that OPs launched a scheme for sale of residential plots and under said scheme, plot no. 8 measuring 200 square yards was allotted to one Gagan Bajaj and as per Scheme, Ops were to deliver possession of plot to the vendee and to develop the area and provide basic amenities such as roads, streets, water supply, sewerage and electricity supply etc in said area and sale deed was to be executed in favour of allottee within 90 days of payment of entire money and thereafter, allottee was to start construction on plot within three years. It is submitted that with the consent of OPs, said Gagan Bajaj after completing all requisite formalities, transferred the said plot to complainants and they paid transfer fee of Rs.37,750/-to OPs and also paid all instalments of said plot by 24.02.2014. It is contended that in May, 2014, complainant requested Ops to execute the registration of plot in question in the name of complainants and also requested to deliver the possession of same to complainants, but Ops sent reply to complainant stating that sale deed cannot be executed in favour of complainants as matter is under consideration. Letters dated 11.11.2016 and 17.01.2017 written by complainants to Ops with request to execute registration in their favour and to deliver the possession of plot to them or to refund their entire money, bore no fruit.  Complainants made several requests to OPs to refund their entire amount with interest, but they did not pay any heed to listen to their requests, which amounts to deficiency. To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs took plea that as per condition no. 27 of terms and conditions of allotment letter that in case of any dispute regarding allocation, it shall be referred to sole Arbitrator/Chief Administrator PUDA, Mohali and award passed by that authority shall be final and binding upon the parties. OPs have denied all the allegations levelled being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part, but admitted that they launched a scheme for development of colony and a plot of 200 square yards was allotted to Gagan Bajaj vide letter dt 8.12.2010, but it is totally denied that complainants ever approached or asked them to deliver the possession of said plot to them. The possession of plot has already been delivered to complainants. It is also admitted that complainants wrote letter to them for execution of sale deed, but that could not be done due to the reason that file was pending with Chief Architect, Punjab for consideration regarding security threat to Sessions House, Faridkot and any construction in that area is a threat to the security of Sessions House. Ld counsel for Ops brought before the Forum that site in question where plot of complainants is located is adjoining the official residence of District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot and any construction in that area may be a threat to security of Sessions House and therefore, Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court vide letter dt 4.12.2012 has restrained to make any construction in that area and due to this reason, permission for construction could not be given to complainants. It is admitted that application dt 15.05.2014 is received from complainants for execution of sale deed, but that is under consideration. It is asserted that after directions dt 4.12.2012 by Hon’ble High Court regarding construction at site in dispute, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 3.12.2014 in Civil Writ Petition No.12630 of 2012 regarding construction at site stated that in view of said facts, the letter dt 4.12.2012 is quashed. Since, the petition could not raise construction for no fault, the petitioner shall not be charged extended fee if he completes the construction within eighteen months, but complainant never raised any construction. It is also admitted by Ops that vide letter dt 11.11.2016, complainant requested them for cancellation of allotment of plot and prayed for refund of money, but same was not permissible after payment of full price. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is not entitled for any refund or interest and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                                           It is admitted by OPs that complainants have made entire payment of sale consideration pertaining to plot in question to OPs and nothing is due towards them. It is also admitted by Ops that complainant wrote requests letters to them for delivering the possession of plot to them and for execution of sale deed in favour of complainants. Plea taken by OPs that file of complainant is pending and is still under consideration has no legs to stand upon as order dated 4.12.2012 has been quashed vide order dated 3.12.2014 of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12630 of 2012. Moreover, when decision in this regard has already been made out, then there is no reason for Ops for keeping the file under consideration. Nowhere in the reply and in arguments, Ops have denied the receipt of full payment or applications by complainants for delivering the possession and for execution of sale deed. It is also observed that OPs did not start any work over the site to develop the area and also  there are no basic amenities such as roads, streets, water supply, sewerage and electricity supply etc in said area, which amounts to deficiency in service.

10                                                                   After  careful  perusal of the record and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, we have  come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in not delivering the possession of plot to complainants in stipulated time and for keeping the file under consideration for long span of time and action of OPs in not providing basic amenities like sewerage, lighting etc at site in question as per their own terms and conditions also amounts to trade mal practice on their part. We are  fully  convinced  with  the  arguments  advanced  by ld counsel for  complainant. Complainants have fully succeeded in proving their case and are entitled   for refund of money deposited by them as price of plot. Ops are liable for deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.17,67,675/- i.e the amount deposited by complainants with them as sale consideration for plot alongwith interest at the rate of  9 % per anum from the date of its payment by complainants to them till its final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses.  The   OPs   are   directed   to   comply   with   the  order  within   a   month   from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order,  failing  which  complainant  can initiate  proceedings  under   section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 11.09.2017

Member                President  

(P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                            cc-69/17

Deepak Grover                    Versus       Punjab Urban Planning and Development

                                                            Authority

 

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 11.09.2017

Member                President