DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 22.1.2021

                                      Decided on:    24.9.2021

Gurbinder Singh aged about 52 years, son of Mohan Singh , resident of H.No.2, Nabha Road, Pritam Park, Nabha Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Chairman.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.A.S.Dhillon, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.A.S.Saran, counsel for OP.                                      

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant purchased  flat No.HIG 14-A, Fifth Floor in Sardal Patel Enclave, Patiala vide allotment letter No.PIT/12/1763 dated 18.6.2012 under the scheme launched by the OP, the payment of which was to be  made in installments and the possession of the flat was to be given after 30 months from the date of issuance of allotment to the allottee. It is averred that the allotment letter was issued on 18.6.2012 and the flats were to be allotted by means of draws of lot in October,2012 and accordingly complainant was allotted HIG Flat No.14A on 5^th Floor and he deposited 25% of the total value of the flat at the time of agreement and thereafter also deposited the balance consideration on different dates with the OP. It is further averred that as per the terms and conditions of the OP the payment was to be made in 10 equal installments bi annually without interest on first five installments and remaining five with interest, provided if the possession of the flat was handed over to the complainant. It is further averred that the flats were not completed within stipulated time i.e. December,2014 and were completed in October 2016 the quality of which is not as per specifications and standard norms, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OP.It  is further averred that the complainant and the members of society several times tried to approach for completion of work. They also wrote letters to Chairman Improvement Trust, Patiala and the Executive Officer, Improvement Trust and also sent letter to Deputy Commissioner Cum Chairman, Patiala but all in vain. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay compensation as per the order dated 5.6.2018 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3608-3621/2017 titled as Improvement Trust Vs. Jaspal Singh; to pay interest on the amount from the committed date of delivery of possession till the date of actual delivery of possession with further interest for the period from the date of actual delivery of possession till actual payment of interest and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/-.
2. Upon notice OP appeared and filed the written reply having raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint.
3. On merits, it is submitted that the OP floated a scheme known as development scheme for fully finished HIG & MIG flats under the self finance scheme and a brochure with terms and conditions was issued in this regard. It is further submitted that flat No.HIG 14-A 5^th Floor was allotted to the complainant through Lucky draw of lots and allotment letter No.PIT/12/1763 dated 18.6.2012 was issued. It is further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the brochure, the allottee/vendee has to become the member of the registered body to be formed by the allottee/vendees to the schemes for the purpose of maintenance of common portion and the allottee shall be required to pay surcharge to the OP at the rate decided by the OP per year for maintenance of roads, water supply, drainage etc. It is further submitted that the complainant executed an agreement for sale with the OP on 3.11.2016. It is further submitted that the complainant never deposited any interest amount on the remaining 5 installments of the flat allotted to him. It is pleaded that all the norms and specifications were complied by the OP as per guidelines laid down by the PWD and B&R. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwih documents Exs.C1 to C19 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sant Banga, Chairman of the OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP7 and closed the evidence.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased one flat for Rs.42,65,000/- and the amount was duly given to the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that the possession was to be given till December/2014 as per the brochure but it was given on 6.10.2016. The ld. counsel further argued that no explanation in this regard has been given. In support of his submissions, the ld. counsel has relied upon the citations  Mehnga Singh Khera and another Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on the point that: Continuous cause of action-Failure to give possession of flat in continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as possession is not delivered to buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach Consumer Courts……….” The ld. counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by  the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Wg.Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleys Sultana and ors. Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. Law Finder Doc ID #1737866 wherein it has been held: Delay in allotment of flats by developer-Determination of compensation-Courts not bound by the compensation provided in the agreement-Flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance do not lose their right  to claim compensation for the delayed handing over of flats.”The ld. counsel further argued that previously also the same matter has been decided by the Hon’ble National Commission. So the complaint be allowed.
7. The ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complaint is time barred as it was to be filed before 2018.The ld. counsel further argued that there is no evidence on the file which can show that there is lack of amenities in the building.So no compensation can be given qua the building. The ld. counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Kishore Shriram Sathe Vs. Vivek Gajanan Joshi 2013(4) C.P.R.45.
8. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is brochure. As per the condition the possession is to be delivered till December/2014 but the possession was delivered on 6.10.2016. Ex.C2 is letter when the possession was given. Ex.C3 is document of Improvement Trust, Exs.C4 to C10 are receipts, Ex.C14 is representation, Ex.C15 is representation sent to Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, Improvement Trust, Patiala. Ex.C16 is reply. The complainant has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the then Ld. President District Consumer Forum, Patiala.This judgment was also on the same facts and the matter was went to Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi where Improvement Trust lost.
9. On behalf of the OPs Sh.Sant Banga, Chairman, Improvement Trust,Patiala has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written reply.Ex.OP1 is letter to Gurbinder Singh,Ex.OP2 is also letter to Gurbinder Singh by the Improvement Trust,Ex.OP3 is brochure,Ex.OP5 is allotment letter to Gurbinder Singh .
10. As per allotment letter dated 18.6.2012 the total amount was Rs.42,65,000/-.Admittedly the amount was paid by the complainant to the OP but as per the brochure the possession was to be delivered till December,2014 but it was delivered as per the letter on the file on 6.10.2016. The ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the complaint is time barred.This complaint is not time barred as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of Mehnga Singh Khera and another Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd.(supra) that failure to give possession of flat in continuous wrong and constitutes recurring cause of action.The complainant has also claimed amount of amenities but no evidence has been lead by the complainant to show that what type of amenities were not provided to him.So he is not entitled to any amount of amenities.
11. So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant @ 6% per annum from 1^st January/2015 to 6.10.2016 due to delay in delivery of possession.

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:24.9.2021       

                             Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar              Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President