Complainant Sh.K.C.Narang has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to  refund the penalty amount of Rs.89,054/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he was allotted Plot No.43 having area of 120 Square meters in 8.64 Acres Rai Sahibna Scheme, Opposite Punjab Roadways Workshop Jalandhar Road, Batala of Improvement Trust Batala out of reserved quota for Govt. Employees vide letter no.1619 dated 3.7.2007 regular sale deed of this plot has also been executed by the opposite party in his favour on 1.6.2012. The sale consideration of this plot was paid by him amounting to Rs.5,52,000/- to the opposite party in installments as per the schedule given in the allotment order. In the Brouchure issued by the opposite party it was clearly mentioned that scheme is well planned and all modern facilities such as Wide Road, Parks, Open Space, Parking Place and all infrastructure such as Sewerage, Wide road, street lights etc are being provided. It was also mentioned therein the brochure that at the time when Trust offers the possession of allotted plot, only basic services i.e. Water Supply, Motorable Road, Sewerage shall be made available in the scheme but the opposite party failed to provide the above mentioned services to the purchaser at the time of offer of delivery of possession. He has further pleaded that the Punjab Govt. vide its letter bearing No.2G/29/11-S.T.2/5915-6190 dated 17.4.2015 provided facility to allottees to get registration of conveyance deeds at the allotment rates, so he also applied for the registration of his conveyance deed at the allotment rates but the opposite party then objected vide letter dated 5.5.2015 that he has not done construction at his plot and the stipulated period of construction has expired on 30.6.2012 and he should first pay Rs.78,254/- with the opposite party as non construction penalty. He under duress and coercion had to pay to the opposite party Rs.78,254/- on 15.5.2015 and Rs.10,800/- on 8.10.2015 as non construction charges under protest. The opposite party was not legally entitled to the non construction penalty because the opposite party had itself failed to provide the basic services in the 8.64 Acres scheme and honour their commitment made by them in the Brochure. The penalty of Rs.89,054/- and its recovery from him is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and it amounts to unfair trade practice. He is a retired Govt. Employees and he has spent money for purchase of Plot out of his hard earned savings. The illegal imposition of non construction penalty of Rs.89,054/- and its recovery has caused a lot of pain and agony to him. The opposite party has refused to refund the amount of penalty. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant is guilty of suppressing the material facts from the court as such he deserves no relief from this forum and as per the record with the opposite party, the owners of the plot no.43 measuring 120 Square Meter in the Rai Sahiba Scheme is in the name of Ms. Deepti Mahajan wife of Sh.Vikas Mahajan and the complainant has no concern with the plot in dispute. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has transferred the ownership rights of the said plot without following the conditions of the agreement executed between the opposite party and the complainant since the plot in question was allotted in the reserve category for the government employees and the complainant has failed to mention the fact of having sold off the plot vide registered sale deed dated 23.09.2015. The complainant disposed off the said plot after getting the registered deed executed in his favour on 1.06.2015 which shows that the complainant had purchased the said plot for resale and after the sale deed was executed by him, he was no longer left with any interest of concern with the said plot and as such the complainant is no longer consumer. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 including Ex.C-3A and closed the evidence.  

5.       Sh.Janak Raj Clerk tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have fully heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable and statutorily acceptable merit(s) as evidenced by the supporting document(s) duly produced on record by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant was allotted Plot # 43 (120 sq meter in size) in the 8.64 Acre Scheme at Batala by the opposite party Improvement Trust vide its letter # 1619/BIT/07 dated 03.07.2007 (Ex.C2) and who after having received the full ‘allotment price’ of   Rs.5,52,000/ had registered the related transfer Sale Deed # 812 dated 01.06.2015 in the complainant’s favor at his request (Ex.C4) in line with the Punjab Govt. notifications (Ex.C3 & Ex.C3A). We further find that the complainant had also been refused (Ex.C8) refund of the ‘penalty’ amount of Rs.89,054/- (Rs.78,254/- Ex.C5 & Ex.6 + Rs.10,800/-) requisitioned by the OP Trust as ‘non-construction’ charges and that had culminated into the present complaint. The complainant has pleaded that he had to deposit the arbitrarily demanded ‘penalty’ in order to meet-out the time dead-line as set out in the Govt. Notifications (Ex.C3 & Ex.C3A) for getting the plot transferred/registered in his name though otherwise he was not legally liable to pay any ‘penalty’ since the OP Trust had failed to provide the requisite infrastructure, at the site, as had been assured/promised by them in the related Booking Brochure (Ex.C10) and that subsequently made him sell the plot in question.

7.       The opposite party Improvement Trust, on the other hand, has deposed/ pleaded in its defense through the affidavit (Ex.OP1) of Janak Raj Clerk that the plot # 43 is presently registered in the name of one Ms. Deepti Mahajan who had purchased the same (Ex.OP4) vide Sale Deed dated 23 .09.2015 and as such the present complainant Sh. K C Narang has not been its statutory consumer entitled to file complaint under the Consumer Act. The OP Trust has also produced the complainant’s affidavit (Ex.OP2) and Indemnity (Ex.OP3) along with other documents (Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP7) to support its pleadings.

8.       We find that the complainant had been admittedly the owner of the plot in question (as its valid allottee) at the time of depositing of ‘penalty’ and as such he has been entitled to file the statutory consumer complaint as ‘consumer’ of the OP Trust. We further find that the OP Trust has failed to prove that the requisite infrastructure facilities had been available/provided for at the site as on the date of handing over/ transfer of the plot to the allottee complainant and in the absence of the same they are not entitled to impose any ‘penalty’ on the grounds of non-construction etc. The above proposition finds its legal support vides the final orders dated 23.09.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab in First Appeal # 1330 of 2004; the paragraph 10 of which rules out as hereunder: “10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly accepted and the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld with the direction that period of three years shall be counted from 10.10.2002 or from the exact date when the above mentioned basic amenities were provided and the possession was delivered to the complainant. If any non-construction charges had been deposited by the complainant, the same shall be refunded.”      

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party Improvement Trust to refund the penalty charges of Rs.89,054/- to the present complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation (for having inflicted harassment etc) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded  amount shall carry an additional interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment. 

10.      Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President

ANNOUNCED:                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)                       

April 25,2018.                                                         Member                                       

*MK*