Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/467

Mangal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

GLADA - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Chhabra Adv.

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 467 dated  03.10.2019.      

                                                Date of decision: 14.12.2022. 

 

Mangal Singh, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Jarnail Singh Jamwal, resident of House No.3506, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Chief Administrative Officer, GLADA, GLADA Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
2. Estate Officer, GLADA, GLADA Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Puneet Chhabra, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Rajnish Lakhanpal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a plot bearing No.334 measuring 150 square yards situated at Sugar Mill Site, Jagraon, District Ludhiana in a scheme named as 601 Residential Plots at Sugar Mill, Jagraon. The complainant has already paid all the sale consideration to the opposite parties and the same has been registered in the name of the complainant vide Wasika No.4111 dated 22.03.2017. The complainant had paid the said amount to the opposite parties by taking loan from State Bank of Patiala and is paying the EMIs including the interest to the said bank.

                   At the time of advertisement, it was assured by the opposite parties that the said carved out colony shall be developed very soon and all the amenities will be provided to the persons who will purchase the plots in the above said scheme. According to the complainant, till date the colony has not been developed by the opposite parties and there is a lack of basic amenities and due to said reason the purchasers have not raised any construction over the plots occupied by them. The complainant is residing in a rental accommodation and is paying huge rent as due to non-development of the colony and due to lack of basic amenities, the complainant has not constructed the house on the site. There are long bushes which are grown up in the colony and the parks are in deteriorated conditions. The drains are not in working condition. Due to aforesaid reason, the complainant has decided not to make any construction over his plot bearing No334 measuring 150 square yards. If at all the complainant raises the construction over his plot, it will further cause loss to him and it is not safe to shift the residence in the said colony. The opposite parties have failed to develop the said colony as per advertisement and due to which the complainant had suffered great loss. So he wants to surrender the same to the opposite parties and wants a refund of the amount along with interest. He also suffered mental pain and agony due to non-development of the above said colony and he has also made to pay interest on the loan raised by him. As such, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 19.08.2019 through counsel Sh. Puneet Chhabra, Advocate whereby the opposite parties were called upon to return the amount of sale consideration along with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and agony but of no avail. Hence the complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for following relief:-

1. Return the amount of ale consideration of Rs.12,75,000/- which has been paid by the complainant for purchasing the plot No.334 measuring 150 square yards in scheme name 601 Residential Plots at Sugar Mill, Jagraon along with interest
2. Payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of physical and mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant due to the non-development of the above said colony and on account of deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant
3. Payment of costs of the complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Further this Commission has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint since it is barred by Section 174 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. Further it was stated that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material and true facts. The true facts are that one Atam Singh son of Surain Singh, R/o. Kacha Kila, Jagraon applied on 30.11.2012 for residential plot measuring 150 sq. yards in S.C. category at Sugar Mill site Jagroan vide application No.844 under OUVGL scheme. The said Atma Singh deposited an amount of Rs.1,27,500/- as earnest money along with application form being 10% of the total price. On a draw of lot which was held on 10.01.2013, said Atma Singh was declared successful. The opposite parties issued Letter of Intent No.2071 dated 20.03.2013 mentioning terms and conditions of the allotment letters. Said Atma Singh further deposited an amount of Rs.1,91,250/- as 15% of the amount of the plot in compliance of condition No.4 of the Letter of Intent. The opposite parties issued a receipt dated 16.04.2013 in this regard. The tentative price of the plot was Rs.12,75,000/- @ Rs.8500/- per sq. yards. Said Atma Singh applied for transfer of the Letter of Intent in the name of Sh. Baljeet Singh son of Sh. Gurbax Singh which was accepted by the opposite parties vide memo No.3193 dated 30.05.2013 and allotment letter bearing No.5059 dated 19.09.2015 was issued in the name of Baljeet Singh son of Gurbax Singh, R/o.1486/5, St. No.3, Harkrishan Nagar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana. The complainant Mangal Singh had purchased the said plot from Baljeet Singh after satisfying the terms and conditions as well as provisions of the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 as well as condition No.4 of the allotment letter. As per Clause 12 of the Letter of Intent, the possession of the plot shall be handed over after the completion of development work at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. As per clause 4 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee within 90 days of issuance of allotment letter provided 25% of the tentative price has been paid. If possession is not taken by the allottee within stipulated period, it shall be deem to have been handed over on the expiry of such period.

                   As far as the development work is concerned,  civil work, electric work and public health work has been completed on 30.09.2015. The allottee was to complete the construction within stipulated period of 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authorities but allottees have failed to get the plan sanctioned within the stipulated period and have failed to raise construction thereon. The complainant has not even applied for getting electricity and water-sewerage connections meaning thereby the allottees have not complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment. It is important to mention that the electricity work at the spot has already been completed by the opposite parties. All the ground work with regard to installation of the transformer, go-switch, energy meter, feeder panels with bus bar and MCB and iron glad switches have been installed by the opposite parties. Further the electrical work for issuance of electric connection to the customers was handed over to the Electricity Department vide memo No.445 dated 29.03.2016. It has been further mentioned that non-construction charges of Rs.59,500/- up to 31.12.2020 are pending against the complainant. According to the opposite parties, as per condition No.8 of the allotment letter dated 19.09.2015, it has been clarified that all the disputes or differences which may arise in any manner touching or concerning this allotment shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator, Punjab and Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) or any person appointed or nominated by him in this behalf. Hence this Court has no jurisdiction. On merits, the basic contents in the preliminary objections/submissions were reiterated in the above para but the opposite parties have emphatically denied the lack of development or basic amenities at the spot. According to the opposite parties, it appears that the complainant has repurchased the plot only for speculative purposes and not finding the appreciation in the price of the plot to his expectations, he is trying to create unimaginable grounds to wriggle out of the commitment. The work is completed as per report Annexure-R1 at the spot. The complainant is not entitled to refund as claimed by him as there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CW1/A and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant  also placed on record copy of adhar card as Ex. C1, Ex C2 is the letter dated 10.01.2017 i.e. no objection certificate issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, Ex. C3 is the installment schedule dated 20.01.2017, Ex. C4 is the offer of allotment No.5059 dated 19.09.2015 issued in the name of Baljeet Singh son of Gurbax Singh, resident of 1486/5, Street No.3,  Harkrishan Nagar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, Ex. C5 is the sanction of housing loan for Rs.11,47,500/- and SBI life of Rs.69,645/- in the name of the complainant and Sushma Rani, Ex. C6 is the copy of conveyance deed in favour of the complainant dated 22.03.2017, Ex. C7 is the copy of legal notice dated 19.08.2019, Ex. C8 and Ex. C9 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Estate officer of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 certificate regarding completion of basic amenities, Ex. R2 is also the completion certificate dated 19.02.2021, Ex. R3 is the handing over of HT and LT works at Urban Estate Sugar Mills site, Jagraon, Ex. R4 to Ex. R11 are the photographs of built houses in the colony and  closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit, reply and annexed documents produced on record by the parties.

6.                Perusal of record shows that originally on 10.01.2013, the plot was allotted to one Atma Singh in draw of lots and Letter of Intent No.2071 dated 22.03.2013 was issued in his favour and in compliance thereof, he had also deposited 15% of the amount Rs.1,91,250/- as per clause 4 of the Letter of Intent. Atma Singh got Letter of Intent transferred in the name of Baljeet Singh vide memo No.3193 dated 30.05.2013 and accordingly, a fresh allotment letter bearing No.5059 dated 19.09.2015 Ex. C4 was issued in the name of Baljeet Singh. Thereafter, on 22.03.2017, the complainant became owner of the said plot vide Wasika No.4111 Ex. C6 and he raised the loan. At the time of purchase, the complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the letter issued to Baljeet Singh from whom the complainant sought transfer. Obviously, the complainant purchased the said plot after about 5 years from the date of advertisement.  Therefore, the complainant is a subsequent purchaser and it cannot be said that he purchased plot and raised loan after getting allured by the advertisement issued by the opposite parties. The cardinal rule of law “Let Buyers Beware” is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.                Perusal of the complaint and affidavit of the complainant shows that the allegations with regard to lack of amenities and non-development of the area are general in nature. The complainant could not point out as to which of the amenities like road, sewerage, parks, electricity poles etc. has not been developed on account of which the construction of the house cannot be undertaken. Rather the opposite parties have attached Ex. R1 and  Ex. R2, the completion certificates with regard to providing of basic amenities for the colony. The photographs Ex. R4 to Ex. R10 also reflects that the allottees/purchasers have constructed their houses and living therein. The counsel for the opposite parties also contended that the complainant had purchased the plot only for speculative purpose and the due to non appreciation of the market rate, now the complainant is trying to find faults in the working of the opposite parties. In fact, the complainant had not deposited the construction charges of Rs.59,500/- up to 31.12.2020. Even in the complaint itself, the complainant has asserted that he does not want to retain the plot and wants to surrender.

8.                From the aforesaid chronological events, it cannot be said that there is a deficiency in service or indulgence of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. No ground is made out which may warrant return of the sale consideration or awarding of compensation to the complainant.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Mangal Singh Vs GLADA                                             CC/19/467

Present:       Sh. Puneet Chhabra, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajnish Lakhanpal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.