DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 419 OF 8.11.2017

                                      Decided on:    6.8.2021

Reeta Rani wife of Surinder Kumar R/o MIG 1162, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Chhotibaradari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Vaibhav Mangla, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite parties ex-parte.                                  

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Reeta Rani (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Improvement Trust and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act for short the Act.
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that the OPs  vide its Vikas Scheme operated from 12.9.2009 to 12.10.2009 demanded the applications from the general public by giving advertisement in leading newspapers and offered allotment of 15 HIG flats of 1978 sq. feet , in the sum of Rs.24.45 lacs for first floor, Rs.24.35 lacs for second floor, Rs.24.25 lacs for third floor, Rs.24.15lacs for fourth floor and Rs.24.05 lacs for fifth floor. Similarly they also offered the allotment of 30MIG flats of 1600 sq.feet in the sum of Rs.19.60lasc for first and 2^nd floors, Rs.19.50 lacs for third and fourth floors, and Rs.19.30 lacs for fifth floor. As per the said scheme in addition of paying the said amount ,4% cess was also to be paid by the allottee in case of  allotment. Accordingly after perusal of the scheme, the complainant applied for the allotment of the HIG flat and deposited an amount of Rs.2,43,500/- as earnest money and after the draw of lots, she  was successful in getting the flat and was allotted flat No.08-C at third floor of the said scheme. It is averred that the complainant was given the schedule of payment of the entire amount of Rs.24.25 lacs alongwith payment of cess and after adjusting the payment of Rs.2,43,500/-, the complainant was directed to make the payment of Rs.4,62,250/- within 30 days from the issuance of the allotment letter and she deposited the said amount with the OPs. It is further averred that as per the allotment letter dated 7.5.2010 a complete schedule of payment was provided wherein the complainant was supposed to deposit the amount of Rs.9,09,375/- in 5 six monthly installments of Rs.1,81,875/- starting from 25.9.2010 to 25.9.2012 and as per clause 5 sub clause 3 , the remaining five installments wee to be deposited with 12% interest. It is further averred that the possession of the flat was to be given  within 2.5 years from the date of allotment and the first five installments wee to be paid without interest and remaining installments were to be paid with interest after the delivery of the possession which was to be delivered on 25.9.2012.It is further averred that the complainant without any default deposited the entire sale consideration with the OPs and was not supposed to make the payment of interest on the remaining installments as the possession was not delivered but she made the payment to the OPs with interest @12% per annum and had deposited the first installment on 22.3.2013 of Rs.2,36,438 and also deposited the remaining installment of Rs.2,25,525/- on 23.9.2013.Thereafter she did not deposit the installment as the OPs were not telling about the interest status. It is further averred that the possession of the flat was to be delivered by the OPs by 25.9.2012 but neither the possession was delivered in time nor the OPs have refunded the charged interest. The complainant made protest against the OPs alongwith other allottes. She also time and again visited the office of OPs but all in vain.
3. It is further averred that the complainant was in dire need of house and she was making the payment of rent, she was constrained to transfer the flat in question in favour of Krishan Gopal son of Hari Chand but before that the OPs charged an amount of Rs.7,09,000/- forcibly. It is averred that the total amount which was to be deposited with interest was Rs.9,09,375/- but the OPs had charged Rs.9,45,438/-. It is further averred that the OPs did not deliver the flat within the stipulated period of 2.5 years from the date of allotment rather they charged interest without any right or authority. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. On this background of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to make the payment of rental value of Rs.25,000/- per month from 25.9.2012 onwards till the delivery of the possession i.e. Rs.17,50,000/- and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act as Reeta Rani had already sold the said property on 9.6.2016 to Krishan Gopal son of Hari Chand and handed over the complete possession in all respects to the said purchaser. Further Reeta Rani on 9.6.2016 gave her affidavit to the OP that she has received the possession of the flat complete in all respects. As such she has left with no concern with the flat.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the allotment of the flat was done on 7.5.2010 and 4% cess was payable as per rules. It is further submitted that schedule of payment was issued to the allottee and payment was to be made in installments. It is further pleaded that 10^th installment was made late i.e. on 10.6.2016 but the same was due on 25.3.2015.Further the possession of the said property was offered to the complainant on 11.6.2014.It is further pleaded that the allottee has made the payments of installments without interest and got the benefit. Furthermore the complainant has sold the flat and got the entire amount in lump sum from the purchaser as such she is not competent to file the present complaint. It is denied that any excess amount was ever charged by the OPs and the amount of Rs.9,45,438/- has been charged as per rules of the OP. Further the OPs have reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C13 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Rajesh Kumar, Jr.Asstt.  alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP2 and requests for a date for leading remaining evidence .Ample opportunities were availed by the ld. counsel for the OPs to lead additional evidence but ultimately on 18.2.2021 none appeared on behalf of the OPs to close the evidence and as such evidence of OPs was closed by order and also the OPs were proceeded against  ex-parte.  
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that flat of 3^rd floor was allotted to the complainant but the possession was not given in time. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant transferred the flat in question in the name of another person and at the time of transfer the OPs charged from her Rs.7,09,000/-forcibly and the possession was not given. So the complaint be allowed.
10. To prove this case the complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA and she has deposed as per the complaint; Ex.C1 is the broacher of the scheme,Ex.C2 is the allotment letter dated 7.5.2010; Ex.C3 is the receipt dated 11.10.2010 vide which Rs.1,83,330/-was deposited, Ex.C4 is the receipt dated 25.3.2011 vide which Rs.1,81,875/-was deposited, Ex.C5 is the receipt dated 23.9.2011 vide which Rs.1,81,875/- was deposited, Ex.C6 is the receipt dated 22.3.2012 vide which Rs.1,81,875/-was deposited, Ex.C7 is the receipt dated 14.9.2012 vide which Rs.1,81,875/-was deposited,Ex.C8 is the receipt dated 25.3.2013 vide which Rs.2,36,438/-was deposited,Ex.C9 is the receipt dated 23.9.2013 vide which Rs.2,25,525/-was deposited.Ex.C10 is the important document. It was written by the Executive Engineer, Improvement Trust, Patiala to Smt.Reeta Rani on 11.6.2014 and she was directed to take the possession after completing the formalities. So it is clear that the possession was offered to Smt.Rita Rani but there is no document produced by the complainant on the file which can show that she completed all the formalities as stated in the letter, Ex.C10 before taking the possession. So Smt.Rita Rana herself was a defaulter in the present case.Ex.C11 is the letter written by Rita Rani to Executive Officer.Ex.C12 is an agreement executed by Rita Rani in the name of Krishan Gopal, resident of House No.4139/2, Sui Garan Street,Patiala, vide which the flat in question was sold by Rita Rani on 9.10.2016.Ex.C3 is the receipt dated 10.6.2016 vide which the Improvement Trust charged amount of Rs.7,09,000/-from Rita Rani for transferring the flat in question.
11. The OPs have tendered affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, Jr. Assistant, in which he has deposed that on 9.6.2016 Smt.Rita Rani has sold the property in question to Krishan Gopal and also given affidavit in this regard, copy of which is Ex.OP1, in which  she has stated that she has received the possession of the flat complete in all respects. In para No.7 of the affidavit she has stated that at the spot  the flat is in perfect condition and there is no change in the flat in question. So it is clear that she herself has given the affidavit that the flat in question was in perfect condition at the spot. Moreover, she has sold the flat in question on 9.6.2016 vide affidavit, Ex.OP1 and she has filed the present complaint on 8.11.2017 i.e. more than after 14 months of selling the same. In para no.4 Sh.Rajesh Kumar has categorically stated that allotment to Rita Rani was done on 7.5.2010 and first installment was payable on 25.9.2010 but the same was paid on 11.10.2010.The last installment was due on 25.3.2015 but the same was paid on 10.6.2016.From the affidavit, Ex.OPA  of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, it is evident that complainant herself is defaulter.
12. So from the affidavit Ex.OP1, it is evident that the flat which she has sold to Sh.Krishan Gopal was in perfect condition at the spot and there is no change in the same. So by giving affidavit, Ex.OP1 Rita Rani is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. So it is clear that Rita Rani herself is defaulter as she has not paid the installments in time. Moreover she has sold the flat in question to Krishan Gopal and no complaint has been filed by Krishan Gopal. Moreso she has filed this complaint after 14 months of selling of the plot to Krishan Gopal. So there is no merit in the complaint and is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
13.  

                                     Vinod Kumar Gulati               Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                               Member                                     President