Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/381

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Estate Officer PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Monga

11 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                                              C.C No. :                     381 of 2017

      Date of Institution:    27.11.2017

                  Date of Decision :     11.09.2019

1. Rakesh Kumar,
2. Sudesh Kumar

Both sons of Sh Raj Kumar residents of Ward No. 5, Kabar Wachha Road, Mudki, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.      

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) Bathinda.

                     ....Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for complainants,    

                  Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.

                  

ORDER

 (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 set aside the memo dt 26.04.2017 and to

cc no.-381 of 2017

refund the amount of Rs.3,18,750/ alongwith interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that OP allotted a residential plot no.9 SDE residence site situated on Talwandi Road, Faridkot measuring 150 square yards in public auction to complainants being the highest bidders for Rs.12,75,000/-and as per terms and conditions of allotment, OP were to provide all the amenities like water supply, sewerage connections, roads, drainage, street lights etc. It is submitted that complainant paid total amount of Rs.3,18,750/- to OP. He paid Rs.1,91,250/- on 6.04.2013 through demand draft no.615991 drawn on State Bank of India and then, Rs.1,27,500/- to OP on 14.03.2014. Despite repeated requests, neither allotment letter nor possession of plot was given to complainants, and even no basic amenities were provided by OP as promised. Complainants received a letter dated 26.04.2017 vide which they were asked to deposit Rs.17,73,014/-in six half early instalments of Rs.2,32,678/-each with interest and in said letter it was also mentioned that allotment letter no.120 dated 11.01.2017 has already been issued to complainants. On receiving the same, complainants approached OPs and requested them to refund Rs.3,18,750/-already deposited by them with OP as Opposite party have failed to issue letter of allotment and schedule for payment of instalments to them. Complainant also moved an

 

cc no.-381 of 2017

application dated 12.07.2017 under Right to Information Act for supplying him copy of complete file regarding auction of plot in question, but OP did not give any reply to that. Complainants made many requests to OP to refund their amount with interest, which is retained by OP without any reason, 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 them for which they have 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 4.12.2017, 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 complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority has not been made party in present case. As per condition no. 8 of terms and conditions of allotment letter, any dispute or difference should have been referred to sole Arbitrator, Chief Arbitrator PUDA and award passed by him shall be bind on parties. However on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainants being wrong and incorrect and asserted that plot no.9 was allotted to complainants vide allotment letter no.120 dated 11.01.2017 issued after Public Auction by

cc no.-381 of 2017

Chief Administrator PUDA. Denying the allegations of complainants, Op asserted that all the civic amenities were already existing at the spot prior to allotment of plot. It is admitted that complainant deposited Rs.3,18,750/-as 25% of price of plot but thereafter, complainants did not pay any price for said plot. It is further averred that plot was duly allotted to complainants and possession was also delivered to them as per terms and conditions of the allotment. It is also admitted that allotment was delayed due to objection raised by Judicial Department with regard to security of Sessions House, adjoining the plot no.9 and 10 of SDE Residence. It is further averred that there is no encroachment on parking space of SDE Residence. All the other allegations of complainants have already been denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP 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-9 and then, closed the evidence.

6                           In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh as Ex OP-1 and then, evidence of OP was closed by order dated 9.09.2019.

7                           Ld Counsel for complainant has argued that OP allotted a residential plot no.9 situated on Talwandi Road, Faridkot measuring 150

cc no.-381 of 2017

square yards in public auction to complainants for Rs.12,75,000/- and as per terms and conditions of allotment, OP were to provide all the amenities like water supply, sewerage connections, roads, drainage, street lights etc. It is submitted that complainants paid Rs.3,18,750/- to OP. Despite repeated requests allotment letter was not issued to complainants. Possession of plot was also not given to complainants. Even no basic amenities were provided by Op as promised. Further argued that complainant received a letter dated 26.04.2017 vide which they were asked to deposit Rs.17,73,014/- in six half early instalments of Rs.2,32,678/-each with interest and in said letter it was also mentioned that  allotment letter no.120 dated 11.01.2017 has already been issued to complainants. Complainants immediately approached OPs and requested for refund of Rs.3,18,750/-already deposited by them with OP as Opposite party have failed to issue letter of allotment and schedule for payment of instalments to them. Grievance of the complainants is that they made several requests to OP to refund their amount with interest, but they did not do anything needful. Thus, action of OP in retaining the huge amount of complainants for long period of four years is totally illegal as they have been deprived of interest if this amount was lying deposited in bank. Complainants requested OP to refund their amount, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great loss to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith main relief and compensation and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 9.

cc no.-381 of 2017

8                         Ld Counsel for OPs argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the agreement. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP, rather complainant himself failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of intent as he did not deposit  due instalments. Moreover, complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority has not been made party in present case. As per condition no. 8 of terms and conditions of allotment letter, any dispute or difference should have been referred to sole Arbitrator, Chief Arbitrator PUDA and award passed by him shall be binding on parties. OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that plot no.9 was allotted to complainants. As per OP, all the civic amenities have already been provided at the spot prior to allotment of plot. It is admitted that complainant deposited Rs.3,18,750/- with them as 25% of price of plot. It is also admitted that possession of plot was delayed. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

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

10                  The case of the complainants is that they were allotted a residential plot in auction by OPs and they deposited Rs.3,18,750/-

cc no.-381 of 2017

towards sale consideration of the said plot with OP on different dates against duly issued receipts but OP neither issued them letter of allotment nor delivered the possession of the plot and also did not provide basic amenities on the site. Without issuance of letter of allotment, they asked him to deposit Rs.17,73,014/- in six half early instalments of Rs.2,32,678/-each with interest. Complainants submitted and made requests to OP to refund their amount deposited with OP as they failed to issue letter of allotment, they did not deliver possession of plot and even no basic civic amenities were provided by OP. In reply OP admitted that they allotted plot to complainant vide allotment letter dated 11.01.2017. They further admitted that the complainants deposited Rs.3,18,750/- to them on different dates. OP have denied all the allegations of complainants being wrong and incorrect.

11.                      We have thoroughly gone through the file and evidence led by both the parties. OP have themselves admitted in their written version that plot in question was issued to complainants in year 2017 and from receipts Ex C-2 and Ex C-3, it is clear that complainant paid amount of Rs.1,91,250/-to OP on 10.04.2013 and he paid Rs.1,27,500/-to them on 14.03.2013. Careful perusal of allotment letter dated 11.01.2017 Ex C-9 clearly depicts the point that this letter is issued on 26.04.2017 vide which they asked complainant to deposit Rs.17,73,014/-with OP in six instalments alongwith interest. Letter of Allotment dated 11.01.2017 is also self explanatory and itself shows that there is great delay as it was

cc no.-381 of 2017

issued very late from the date of auction. Ex C-5 is copy of letter dated 2.07.2017 written by complainant to OP, wherein he has narrated his entire grievance. It reveals the fact that made auction of plot in dispute in year 2013 and got deposited Rs.3,18,750/-from complainant and they issued letter of allotment to complainant after completion of more than four years and now, they have required complainant to deposit the remaining amount of consideration with interest. Delay is caused by their own negligence and they have no right to force complainant to pay interest for the wrong done by them. Despite repeated requests OP did not issue letter of allotment and did not give delivery of plot to complainant in time and now, by issuance of letter dt 26.04.2017, they have themselves shown trade mal practice on their part. It is admitted by OP that complainants have made payment of 25% of sale consideration pertaining to plot in question to OP. It is also admitted by OP that delivery of possession was delayed. 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.

12                         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 causing delay in issuance of letter of allotment and action of OPs in not providing basic amenities

cc no.-381 of 2017

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.3,18,750/- 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.8,000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2,000/-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

(Param Pal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                        Member                          President