Punjab

Sangrur

CC/12/2015

Akhil Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Imp.Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Yogesh Gupta

06 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                                         Complaint no. 12                 

                                                                        Instituted on: 06.01.2015

                                                                        Decided on:    06.05.2015

Akhil Bansal, Advocate s/o Sh. Ashok Bansal, Advocate resident of Club Road, Sangrur.  

                                                        …. Complainant.   

Versus

1. Improvement Trust, Sangrur through its Executive Officer.
2. Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Sangrur.  

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :    Shri Pawan Gupta, Advocate                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                            

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Akhil Bansal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the OPs published a scheme for draw of flats in the area of Captain Karam Singh Nagar 23.66 Acre Scheme on 12.05.2011 and demanded applications for allotment of furnished house.  The OPs allotted flat no.7 of TF category vide allotment  letter No.654 dated 26.04.2012 for sale consideration of Rs.19,30,000/-.  The schedule of payment in installments has been mentioned in allotment letter. The complainant deposited Rs.1,99,000/- as advance money and also deposited Rs.3,61.,450/-. Five installments of Rs.1,44,750/- have already been deposited by the complainant.  The OP should complete the construction within period of 1 year and 6 months from the date of allotment.  The OP has not informed to the complainant that date of completion of flat has been extended by any competent authority, therefore delay in delivery of flat is deficiency in service upon part of OP. The complainant applied the flat because he required the same for his need. The complainant suffered lot of mental tension because of delay in delivery of possession of flat.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to complete the construction of flat and delivery the possession immediately,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- on account of use of amount by the OPs and Rs.50,000/- ,as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and suppression of material facts have been taken up.  On merits, it is submitted that due to the dispute with mason/ contractor, the work of the flats construction could not be completed in time, as the estimate price of the construction work has been increased contractor left the construction work as incomplete and opposite party sending the estimates again to Punjab Government after passing the resolution and OP will get the approval from the Government of the increased estimate. As soon as the OP gets the approval from the Punjab Government then OP after completing the remaining construction work immediately.  Moreover,  as per booklet/ broucher there is a clear cut written in broucher in para no.12 that there may be increase in the period to completion of the construction work of the flats hence there  are unavoidable circumstances and beyond the control of the OP and due to the increase in the estimate price of the construction price of the flats. The contractor refused to complete the construction of the flats due to the above  mentioned reasons hence OPs sending the estimate of the increased price of the construction  for approval to the Punjab Government. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence.

4.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the delay in the completion of the flat of the complainant by the OPs. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite parties are deficient in service as the flat which was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter number 654 dated 26-04-2012 for sale consideration of    Rs. 19.30 lacs was to be completed approximately within one year and six months. The complainant has been regularly depositing the amount of installments to the opposite parties as per schedule mentioned in the allotment letter dated 26-04-2012 which is Ex.C-16 on record. The complainant has deposited all the due installments    upto 25-10-2014 amounting to Rs 1284200/- out of the total amount of Rs19.30 lacs and as such the complainant is a consumer of the Ops. The OPs were to give the possession of the flats within in the approximate period of one year and six months as per clause 12 of the document Ex. C-17. Though the total amount of the installments had to be paid by 25-04-2017. This non- delivery of the possession of the flat in time has been alleged by the complainant as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

5.             In the written submissions, the Ops have admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops as he was allotted Flat No. 7 of TF category vide allotment letter number 654 dated 26-04-2012 for the sale consideration of Rs 19.30lacs. The Ops have also admitted that the complainant has been regularly depositing the installments as per the schedule mentioned in the allotment letter and a total sum of Rs 12,34,200 has been deposited by the complainant out of the total consideration amount of Rs 19.30 lacs. It has been further submitted by the Ops that,” Due to the Dispute with Mason/ Contractor, the work of the flats construction could not be completed in time, as the estimate price of the construction has been increased, contractor left the construction work as incomplete.”

6.             Further, the opposite parties have referred to the clause 12 of the brochure which is document Ex. C-17 which says that the approximate time of the completion of the flats is one year and six months but the same can be extended and claim for the delay will not be considered. Now, we find that both the parties are relying on the clause 12 or document Ex. C-17 which is written in Punjabi and it says that on completion of all formalities and documentation, the possession of the flats will be given in semi finished conditions on as is where is basis. The approximate time of the construction is one year and six months and this can be extended because these flats are being constructed under semi self financed scheme. For the delay, no claim could be made and after taking the possession by the applicant no complaint will be entertained and sale deed will not be executed before the full payment. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that this clause no 12 of the document Ex C17 does not give any blanket powers to the opposite parties to extend the period of completion of the flats for unlimited time and that too without intimation to the complainant  when the needy persons had applied to occupy this within the time as mentioned in Ex. C- 17 i.e in one year and six months as the complainant has applied for the flat keeping in mind that the same will be handed over to him within one year and six months from the date of allotment of the plot in question. The OPs have never given any intimation to the allottees as to why the delay has occurred in the completion of the flats and when the same will be completed and now more than three years have passed from the date of allotment of flats as per document Ex. C-16 which is dated 26.04.2012 but still the OPs vide their document Ex.OP-1 has not declared the time by which the construction of the flats as per allotment letter Ex. C-16 and as per brochure Ex. C-17 will be completed rather the OPs have mentioned that due to the disputes with Mason/ Contractor, the construction work of the flats could not be completed. Now, vide document dated 07.04.2015 Ex.OP-1 the OPs have submitted their version that the allotment of flats could not be given within the stipulated period and that too after the filing of the present complaint. In this document also, no exact time and date for the completion of the flats has been mentioned and this clearly shows that they have admitted their deficiency as they have not been able to get the flats constructed within the given stipulated period. The OPs have mentioned that the estimate price of the construction has since been increased and the approval from the government is still being awaited with regard to their consent for the construction of the flats. Such a version of the Ops clearly shows that the hard earned money of the complainant is at the mercy of the opposite parties and how indifferent they are to the concern of the complainant for his need of a residential flat in a planned colony. The opposite parties are themselves taking the plea that the cost of construction has increased now but then this delay is on the part of the opposite parties as they have not completed in flats in three years when they were required to complete the same in one year and six months as per the condition mentioned in the brochure as the applicants had applied for the flats as per conditions mentioned in the brochure and as such they cannot burden now the innocent complainant for their own fault as the OPs had slept over the issue for a considerable long period. Learned counsel for the complainant has also cited the judgment of the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission delivered in the case of Kwality Colonisers Versus Sunita Bali and others delivered in the first appeal number 349 of 2014 with IA 3967 of 2014 decided on 16-10-2014 in which it has been held that, “the appellant by not delivering the legal physical   possession of the fully developed unit to the respondent no 1 till date, even after having received 90 percent of the price, is not only deficient in rendering service but is also guilty of indulging into unfair trade practice.” In the present complaint also, the OPs had advertised vide document Ex.C-17 that the flats will be completed in one year and six months but even after passing of more than three years the ops have failed to construct the flat and to give the possession. Reliance can also be made on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as  Shivalik Cooperative  House Building ( First) Society Ltd.  Vs. Sushil Kumar, 2014 (4) CLT page 69 wherein it has been held that unnecessary delay in delivery of possession to the respondent by petitioner has been made without any justification and the petitioner is entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical mental harassment.

7.             So, keeping in view of  discussion made above , we find that the OPs are not only deficient in service but they are also guilty of unfair trade practice. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,000/-( One lac)  as compensation, damages, mental agony and harassment to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- being the amount of litigation expenses. We further order the OPs to construct the flat as per specifications and terms and conditions mentioned in document Ex. C-17 and give the possession of the same within a period of six months.

8.             This order of ours must be complied with in a period of 30 days from the receipt of the order with regard to the payment of compensation and the ops to give the possession of the flat within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order other.

                Announced.

May 6, 2015.

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                     

      Member                    Member                       President

 

 

BBS/-