BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.284 of 2015

Date of Instt. 29.06.2015

Date of Decision: 21.11.2017

Late S. Inderjit Singh aged 68 years, son of Late S. Jaswant Singh, R/o House No.B-55/3, New Beant Nagar, PO:PAP Lines, Jalandhar-Pb-144006.

..........Complainant

Legal Heirs of Late S. Inderjit Singh, Complainant:-

1. Baljit Kaur - Wife

2. Jagjot Kaur - Daughter

3. Brahm Jot Kaur - Daughter

4. Sarabjit Kaur - Daughter

5. Jasmeen Kaur - Daughter

Versus

Estate Officer, JDA, S.C.O No.41, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

….… Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Smt. Harleen Kaur, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. AS Saini, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint originally filed by the complainant Inderjit Singh (now deceased), wherein alleged that the complainant applied for LIG House, in 1983, from PUDA Housing Board H. No.LIG-341 G.F., Phagwara (Kapurthala) was allotted, vide Leter No.PHB-Allot-A-3-85/395-97 of 31/01/85 and installments were being paid regularly. Allotted Hire-Purchased House from PUDA, which also comes under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court. When the installments were being paid regularly, the complainant visited the spot i.e. LIG House No.341-GF, at Phagwara (Kapurthala). It was a matter of astonishing that Dwelling Unit was not at all constructed. The matter was brought to the notice of the Housing Commissioner Chandigarh, who in turn allotted LIG-164 GF against the earlier 341-GF, on the same terms and conditions of initial allotment letter. That due to frequent transfers of the complainant, the file of the Flat No.164 got misplaced & could not be traced. The complainant applied on prescribed form, for issue of duplicate papers, vide diary No.1113 of 29/08/2013 of PUDA and FIR was also lodged i.e. FIR No.14 of 10.09.2013. That PUDA, forwarded a duplicate copy of allotment letter LIG-341 GF, vide their letter No.EO-JDA-S-5-2013/4782/4985 of 25/09/2013-14/10/2013. That PUDA/Office, vide letter, EO-JDA-S-5-2013/5118 dated 21/10/2013, asked the complainant to bring the ownership paper before they send the paper of 164, otherwise, the letter is filed and is being closed hereafter. PUDA is well known of the facts, that the relevant paper of Flat No.164 GF, are missing & not traceable, that is why duplicates asked for vide PUDA Diary No.1113 dated 29/08/13 and the action is still pending with them.

2. That the complainant has personally visited the PUDA, many times and a lot of correspondence made with PUDA office, but all in vain. The complainant asked under RTI Act 2005, from PUDA/E.O., vide letters dated 31.03.2015 and 12.05.2015, but no fruitful results were communicated instead, supplied an incomplete information, which is not serving any purpose. The complainant requested for “No Due Certificate” from PUDA to enable to get his property transferred in his name from Competent Authority, which is required by PUDA for registration purpose. That PUDA has denied the issue of “No Due Certificate” on the plea that a sum of Rs.40,420/- is pending against the complainant, whereas the entire cost and interest has been deposited and nothing is outstanding. PUDA accepted an amount of 46515/18 received against 164 GF. The complainant has also deposited a few installments against Flat No.341-GF, but that is not shown separately to clarify whether the few installments deposited against 341GF, have been adjusted against Flat No.164 GF or not. At this juncture, PUDA has been demanding Rs.40,420/- in addition to the amount already received by them (i.e. Rs.46515/18), which is not at all judicially justified and is far from the cost i.e. Rs.28,888/-. The complainant has suffered a lot on account of un-necessary and unlawful process being tendered to with none of the fault of the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to issue “No Due Certificate” alongwith a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the unlawful and unusual mental and physical harassment faced with no fault of the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly, OP filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.40,420/- has been demanded from the complainant as per the liability of the complainant as per record. However, as per the calculation, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.41,750/- as on today. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and even the complainant is not a consumer as defined under 'The Consumer Protection Act', thus, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint. It is further alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and further alleged that the demand of due amount by the OP cannot be said to be an act of deficiency in services rendered to the complainant. On merits, the allotment of the flat to the complainant is not denied but payment of regularl installment is categorically denied and the other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied being wrong and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.O-1 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the written arguments, filed by the complainant and also heard the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After considering the over all factors as submitted before us by the respective counsel for the parties and then find that the facts in regard to allotment of Flat No.341 GF LIG to the complainant, vide letter dated 31.01.1985 is established from the copy of the letter Ex.C2 and later on, the aforesaid Flat No.341 GF LIG was changed with the other flat No.164 GF LIG, vide letter dated 14.07.1986, copy of the same is available on the file Ex.C1, the total cost of the said flat is shown in the allotment letter Ex.C1 i.e. Rs.28,888/-, out of which, the complainant has paid/deposited 25% of the aforesaid price, which comes to Rs.7222/- and remaining was agreed to be paid as per letter Ex.C2 by way of monthly installment i.e. within 156 months and thereafter, the complainant will took the physical possession of the flat.

8. There is no dispute in regard to the facts as discussed above, the dispute between the parties is only that the OP is alleging that the complainant/original allottee did not make a payment of the installment and these factum have been elaborated by the OP in para No.3, in the manner that the complainant never deposited any installment after re-scheduling and as such, calculate the amount with interest and other charges as per agreement, which comes to Rs.40,420/- and said amount has been demanded by the OP, vide letter dated 16.03.2015, which is Ex.C6 and OP alleged that due to non payment of aforesaid amount, “No Due Certificate” has not been issued to the complainant, whereas the complainant alleged that he has already made the payment of entire amount though he could not retain the receipts, which have been lost alongwith other papers of the allotment and accordingly, the complainant got the detail of payment through RTI from the OP and detail of payment, issued by the OP is Ex.C5, whereby it is established that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.46,515.18/- upto 10.04.2004. The record of the OP itself established that the complainant Inderjit Singh (now deceased) had been paying the installment from the year 1986 to 2004, though he has not made the payment within a stipulated period of 13 years, rather paid the amount within 18 years and even then the complainant has made a payment of Rs.46,515.18/- upto year 2004, whereas the original price of the flat was Rs.28,888/- as mentioned on the allotment letter Ex.C2. So, it means that the complainant has already paid more than amount of the original value of the flat, which can be considered including interest and other charges and conclude that the complainant has already paid the entire due amount of the flat No.164 to the OP, whereas the OP flatly made a lie by stating in para No.13 of the written reply that the complainant never deposited any installment after re-scheduling, whereas documents show that the payment has been already made. So, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is not entitled to recover any alleged due amount of Rs.40,420/- from the complainant rather the OP is bound to issue “No Due Certificate” to the complainant, for the purpose of transfer of the flat in the name of the LR of the complainant (who has already expired).

9. In the light of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the OP is directed to issue “No Due Certificate” to the LRs of the complainant for getting transfer the flat No.164 in their name, according to Law and further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

21.11.2017 Member President