Sh. Honey Babbar, the titled complainant claims to have been the lawful allot-tee of Plot No. 601 (502.32 SQ Yd in area) at the Urban Estate, Gurdaspur vide the titled opposite party (for short, the OP) namely the Estate Officer, PUDA, Amritsar's Allotment letter # 58 (23.08.2011) and having deposited Five nos. of Purchase Installments. However, he admits having defaulted in is last 6th installment that he has been since ready to pay with late-fee/penalty etc., as per the applicable rules.
2. However, on 20.04.2017, the complainant alleges to have been in receipt of the OP communique # ADA/AA/A/2016/4537 demanding Rs.12,65,846/- as the balance sum overdue towards him for the three overdue installments. The OP, upon approach had been procrastinating tendering of details of the said demand.
3. Further, on 21.08.2017, the complainant alleges having received Plot Cancellation orders ADA/AA/S-1/ 2017/12632 of the plot alleging 'default' in payment and also being not in conformity with the terms of Sanction. The complainant alleges having approached the OP several times for withdrawal of the said cancellation letter and acceptance of his overdue one installment with penalty etc but the OP did refuse to relent and review its orders hence the present complaint praying cancellation of the Plot Cancellation Letter, acceptance of his balance one last installment besides an appropriate compensation and cost of litigation etc. Lastly, in support of his prosecution (of the complaint), the complainant has put forth on records the following documents, in evidence, as:
i) Ex.Cw1/A - Affidavit by the complainant deposing contents of the complaint;
ii) Ex.C1 – PUDA Plot Cancellation Letter dated 21 .08.2017;
iii) Ex.C2 – PUDA Demand # 4537 (20.04.2017) for 3 O/d installments Rs.12,65,846/-;
iv) Ex.C3 – PUDA Receipt # 70 dated 26.07.2012 for Rs.512,366/-;
v) Ex.C4 - PUDA Receipt # 26 dated 17.07.2013 for Rs.489,762/-;
vi) Ex.C5 - PUDA Receipt # 65 dated 20.07.2015 for Rs.467,158/-;
vii) Ex.C6 - PUDA Receipt # 292 dated 27.12.2016 for Rs.444,553/-;
viii) Ex.C7 - PUDA Receipt # 2921 dated 27.12.2016 for Rs.421,949/-;
ix) Ex.C8 – Legal Notice (29.08.2017) to the OP - Demand of Rs.12,65,846/-;
x) Ex.C9 – Dispatch Postal Receipt of above Notice of 30.08.2017.
4. The OP PUDA Office, in response to the Commission’s Summons, appeared through its counsel and filed its written-version, refuting therein, almost all the allegations as made out in the complaint. At the very outset, the first two paragraphs of complaint were denied i) for want of knowledge and ii) being subject matter of records. Further, the complainant has been addressed as a ‘deliberate-defaulter' in deposit of his purchase installments. The OP claims to have served many 'demand-notices' upon complainant but he paid no heed to all these notices. The OP have admitted its Demand Notice No. 4537 (20.04.2017) for Rs.12,65,846/- as the outstanding amount for three overdue installments, but no compliance was bothered by the complainant.
5. Further, it was denied that the complainant had only one installment of Rs.512,366/-, in arrears, as on 27.06.2012 at the time of first notice; and further, the arrears got summed up to Rs.12,65,846/- as on 20.04.2017 when 3 nos. of installments had fallen, in arrears. Lastly, the Plot was canceled on 21.08.2017 when the complainant failed to avail of the ample opportunity given to him for regularization purchase deposits along with penalty/interest under the OTS (One time Settlement) Scheme of PUDA but the complainant stayed unmoved. Lastly, the OP have pleaded that the complainant never approached them for an amicable settlement or for withdrawal of Cancellation Notice and thus the present complaint deserves dismissal with costs. The OP, in its defense did produce only its lone Affidavit deposing the contents of its reply by its authorized signatory Gurpreet Singh and simultaneously determined the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to adjudicate/determine the respective ‘claims’ as put-forth by the present litigants in the light of arguments put forth by their respective learned counsels. The complainant has allegedly suffered much hardship on account of his having fallen in 'default' by one installment, only. However, we find that the complainant has omitted to produce the 'deposit' schedule of the purchase installments or even the allotment letter so as to facilitate determination of 'delay' along with other terms etc of the Plot 'purchase'. On the other hand, the OP claims three nos of installments having fallen in arrears amounting to Rs.12,65,846/- as on 20.04.2017 but he has also ignored to produce documentary evidence to prove the same and/or its other claims and in the absence of supporting evidence all the pleadings get put aside as bald-statements. The OP have also neither rebutted the complainant's claim of deposit of five installments nor have denied the five deposit Receipts issued by themselves only. We observe that the OP have omitted to produce the plot related documents that would have facilitated the present resolve. The OP being the State Govt. Corporate Body engaged in urban land development are expected to be transparent in its public transactions/functions.
7. We further find that the plot allotment was done on 23.08.2011 by the OP allotment letter no. 58 (incidentally, no party has produced this vital document) that finds a reference only in (Ex.C1) Plot Cancellation Letter whereas the first Demand Notice gets issued for Rs.512,366/- on 27.06.2012; And, in its compliance, the complainant deposited the first installment on 26.07.2012 and other as:
Ex.C3 – PUDA Receipt # 70 dated 26.07.2012 for Rs.512,366/-;
Ex.C4 - PUDA Receipt # 26 dated 17.07.2013 for Rs.489,762/-;
Ex.C5 - PUDA Receipt # 65 dated 20.07.2015 for Rs.467,158/-;
Ex.C6 - PUDA Receipt # 292 dated 27.12.2016 for Rs.444,553/-;
Ex.C7 - PUDA Receipt # 2921 dated 27.12.2016 for Rs.421,949/-;
Further, the OP have admittedly issued the next (second) demand notice # 4537 on 20.04.2017 for Rs.12,65,846/- (after the first notice of 27.06.2012). Obviously, the OP seems not to accounted for two or more of the above five deposits while issuing the second notice. It needs be pertinently understood that the OP (Records on the file) did not examine the complainant's Purchase Installment A/c w e from the date of first notice i.e., 27.06.2012 till the date of second notice (20.04.2017) i.e., for five years approximately. However, there is mention of two other notices one during the intervening period of 10.01.2017 and other is post plot-cancellation i.e., 16.10.2017 but no evidence worth the name was ever attempted to be produced during thecourse of the present proceedings by the OP. Further, the OP have neither denied nor rebutted the 'five' deposits by the complainant I.e, OP Receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C7 and that amounts to implied admission of deposits of the five installments.
8. We find that the Complainant had been the one rightful allot-tee holder of Plot No. 601 as allotted to him by the OP on 23.08.2011 and its determination in pend-ency of deposit installments and its further cancellation etc have been all done in an arbitrary, unfair and non-transparent manner exhibiting an employ of unfair trade practices that amount to deficiency in service by the OP under the applicable statute, here.
9. We hold the OP office unfair in its acts/ omissions pertaining to the complainant’s payments of plot-purchase installments and thus it stands liable to an adverse order under the legislated provisions of the herein applicable statute. Finally, we find the OP Office guilty of having vehemently violated the statutory consumer rights of the complainant and thus hold them liable to pay a matching compensation to the complainant under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
10. We observe that the complainant has yet to deposit the final sixth equated purchase installment along with penalty interest etc., from its due date to the date when he offered its deposit with the OP office. Since, neither the complainant nor the OP office have placed any such evidence on record we find it in right fitness of things to have the date of filing of the present complaint i.e., 04.10.2017 as the date of offer placed forth by the complainant to deposit the last 6th purchase installment with the OP office. As, the 6thpurchase installment has also not been quantified by any of the two parties, we direct that the same shall not be more than 10% of the one-sixth of the total cost/ sale/purchase price of the plot as on 23.08.2011.
11. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Office i) to withdraw/set-aside the Plot Cancellation Order dated 21.08.2017 and to restore the allotment of plot # 601 with retrospective effect (23.08.2011) to the complainant and ii) to determine and draw the last 6th repayment installment in line with the directives of paragraph '10' of the orders upon the complainant (who shall deposit the amount so drawn upon him within 30 days of receipt of the same) besides iii) to pay the complainant Rs.15,000/- as lump-sum compensation for the financial loss as well as for having suffered other hardships etc., along with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation; all, payable within 45 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate award amount of Rs.20,000/- shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present orders till actually paid.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (B.S.Matharu)
JUNE 10, 2022. Member.
YP.
