Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/101

Tarun Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust, Rupnagar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. D S Sandhu, Adv

21 Feb 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 101 of 23.10.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    21.02.2019

 

 

Tarun Gupta, aged about 32 years, son of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, resident of House No.365, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Rupnagar Improvement Trust, Rupnagar, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Chairman  
2. Executive Officer, Rupnagar Improvement Trust, Rupnagar, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

           ....Opposite Parties

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

 

Sh. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. V.K. Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.Ps

 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Sh. Tarun Gupta, son of Bharat Bhushan Gupta, resident of House No.365, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2  to pay Rs.2,75,000/- as interest by way of damages w.e.f. 27.3.2018 @ 18% on Rs.1,49,000/- received retained and used by the O.P. along with further interest from the date of filing the complaint till final realization of amount, along with cost of complaint.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the O.Ps. floated a scheme under which it offered fourty(40) 5 storied MIG finished residential flats at Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Water Works Road, Rupnagar. The O.Ps. invited the applications from the eligible persons for allotment of flats along with 1% of earnest money/initial deposit of Rs.15,000/-. As demanded, the complainant submitted the application and deposited Rs.15,000/- dated 12.2.2008. The O.P. trust issued receipt No.4578 dated 13.2.2008 in this regard. Improvement Trust vide its letter No.2190 dated 19.3.2008 demanded from the complainant Rs.1,34,000/- balance amount of earnest money along with prescribed form valued at Rs.10/- to be purchased from its office. In compliance, the complainant submitted the application form along with affidavit and a bank draft of Rs.1,34,000/-. The O.Ps. encashed the demand draft and have used the money of the complainant for more than 10 years and the complainant has been deprived of its use. The complainant inquired from the O.Ps. the status of its project then the O.Ps. has refunded Rs.1,44,000/- to the complainant by deducting Rs.5000/- illegally and wrongly. Hence, this complaint. 
3. On notice, O.Ps. No.1 & 2, appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the O.Ps; that the complaint does not lie; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; that there is no deficiency on the part of O.Ps. On merits, it stated that the O.Ps. had not used the amount of the complainant for ten years. Whereas, vide order of Chairman of Improvement Trust, Rupnagar after deducting an amount of Rs.5000/- rest of the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- has been ordered to be refunded to the complainant. The complainant was informed through letter No.281/LG dated 13.4.2011 issued by the Improvement Trust, Rupnagar that the token money of the complainant is to be returned/refunded and the complainant was asked to deposit the receipts of the token money given by him to the O.Ps. but the complainant did not deposit the receipts with the Improvement Trust, Rupnagar. It is further stated that Tarun Gupta, complainant had gone abroad for long time and did not came back for last few years and his relative told the O.Ps. that since the complainant has gone abroad, he does not have receipts to deposit with the Improvement Trust, Rupnagar. When the O.Ps. asked the complainant’s relatives to give an affidavit in this regard to the O.Ps. he did not give any affidavit. Thereafter, the O.Ps. had also sent one reminder to submit the original receipts but the complainant did not submit the original receipts as asked by the O.Ps. The O.Ps. have brought the issue of scheme of constructing MIG Flats but due to non receipt of applications as expected, the scheme was not implemented further. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.  On being called upon to produce the evidence, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. Jr. Assistant of O.Ps. tendered the duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP/I and closed the evidence.  
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6.  Complainant counsel Sh. D.S. Sandhu, argued that O.P (Improvement Trust) launched a scheme in which 40 five storied MIG finished residential flats at Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar were to be allotted. When applications were invited then the complainant after satisfying himself moved an application for the allotment of flat by depositing 1% of the total amount of the flat i.e. Rs.15000/- as earnest money. Thereafter, O.Ps. processed the request and then vide letter No.2190 dated 19.3.2008 demanded the balance amount of Rs.1,34,000/- i.e. of 10% of the total price then deposited Rs.1,34,000/- on 24.3.2008 but thereafter till today O.Ps. as per their scheme neither carved out the colony/residential flats nor allotted the flat. The complainant has been now refunded the amount of Rs. Rs.1,44,000/- received by way demand draft on 19.6.2018. The O.Ps. had kept Rs.1,49,000/- in its account and when the complainant sent a notice then returned Rs.1,44,000/- with deduction of Rs.5000/- without any reason and no interest paid. Lastly prayed deficiency on the part of O.Ps. stands established and O.Ps. played the fraud with the complainant by receiving huge amount which is now returned ith deduction and without interest till the year 2018. He prayed to allow the complaint with costs/interest.
7. Sh. V.K. Sharma, counsel for O.Ps. argued that the scheme was launched with the precedent condition that if a considerable/suitable applications are received for the allotment of the flats only then as per the scheme, residential flats area will be carved out and flats were to be constructed, but O.Ps. received very small numbers of applications hence the scheme could not be matured. Learned counsel further argued that the O.Ps. had taken the decision in the year 2010 not to launched the scheme and then approached the O.Ps. vide Ex.OP1/G dated 8.5.2014 and vide letter dated 13.4.2011 addressed to the complainant but the complainant was abroad i.e. why the received amount Rs.1,49,000/- could not be deposited into the account of the complainant. Lastly prayed that O.Ps. senior authorities had taken the decision vide resolution dated June 2018 that to avoid litigation it should return Rs.1,44,000/- with deduction of Rs.5000/-. He also prayed that deficiency remains unproved, money deposited stands returned now no claim is maintainable. The complaint be dismissed.
8. Complainant pleaded qua the deficiency on the part of O.Ps. then relied upon the deposit of Rs.15,000/- as well as Rs.1,34,000/- in the year 2008. That stand is admitted by the O.ps. correspondence as well as photocopy of the application Ex.C5 proves that the scheme was launched by the O.Ps and received the earnest money i.e. 10% of the total sale price. Complaint was filed in the month of October 2018 and O.Ps. returned Rs.1,44,000/- with the letter dated 19.6.2018 through cheque No.090426 dated 15.6.2018. Complainant has alleged deficiency and O.Ps. have taken a different stand. So, it is a consumer dispute, complaint is maintainable and this forum has territorial jurisdiction.
9. Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. Admitted documents/pleadings need not to be discussed again as it will be repetition. O.Ps. launched scheme, complainant deposited 10% i.e. Rs.1,49,000/-, qua this fact, documentary evidence is on the file. So far the arguments of the O.Ps. counsel that scheme was launched with the conditional precedent that in case inadequate applications come for the allotment of the flats then the scheme would be stopped. To strengthen this version, there is no document on the file. Even it has not produced on the file the original notification/publication in news paper or through pamphlets. So this part of the arguments is without merit.
10. Complainant relied upon sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A, receipt of handing over Rs.15,000/- is dated 12.2.2008 Ex.C1, pay order Ex.C2 dated 12.2.2008, receipt dated 13.2.2008 Ex.C3, Ex.C4 vide which O.Ps. demanded Rs.1,34,000/- from the complainant i.e. that balance amount from the earnest money, Ex.C5 is the application moved by the complainant to the O.Ps. for the allotment, Ex.C6 is pay order dated 24.3.2008 of Rs.1,34,000/-, Ex.C7 affidavit of complainant as per the requirement of O.Ps. vide which he declared not having any residential flats/house under any other scheme of PUDA/HUDA in Punjab, Ex.C8 & Ex.C9 showing deposit Rs.1,34,000/- (receipts), Ex.C10 again letter on behalf of complainant to the O.Ps. qua the deposit and this document is without date. Ex.C11 request to the complainant from the Executive Officer, O.P. No.2 vide which Rs.1,44,000/-  refunded to the complainant and Ex.C12 is the cheque  of the said amount.
11. To rebut the complainant version, the O.Ps. tendered the affidavit which is in accordance with the reply. Ex.OP1/B is the request application of the complainant for the allotment of the flat along with affidavit which has already  been placed on file by the complainant. Ex.OP1/D is the receipt of Rs.15,000/- by the O.Ps. from the complainant. Ex.OP1/E is the demand of Rs.1,34,000/- by the O.Ps. from the complainant. The star document as per the O.Ps. version is the letter dated 13.4.2011 and Ex.OP1/F and letter dated 8.5.2014 Ex.OP1/G vide which O.Ps. directed the complainant to produce the original receipts qua Rs.15,000/- and Rs.1,34,000/- so that the said amount may be returned. Ex.OP1/H is the letter dated 19.6.2018 vide which O.Ps. refund Rs.1,44,000/- to the complainant.
12. O.Ps. also relied upon one resolution Ex.OPI dated 8.12.2010 vide which O.Ps. had taken the decision on four applications of different persons including complainant received for the allotment of MIG Flats and the Trust decided not to continue further with the scheme, Rs.5000./- be deducted each from the amount deposit of the applicants and remaining amount be returned. Further this letter comes to an end with specific date/signatures of the higher authority. The second leaf of this document is dated 24.5.2018 which is a noting giving details about the amount received from the applicants  recital is qua the receipt of Rs.1,49,000/- from the complainant and other on the 4^th page of this document it is mentioned that applicants deposit the money for the allotment of the flats and to avoid the litigation their deposit be returned and keeping the money for more longer time is not improper.
13. After appreciating the documentary evidence as discussed above and on close scrutiny, the forum has come to the conclusion that complainant had deposited Rs.15,000/- on 12.2.2008 and Rs.1,34,000/- on 24.03.2008. Till 2018 complainant kept waiting for the possession of the flats as well as allotment. But to return the money, the O.Ps. had taken the decision firstly in the year December 2010 but not informed the complainant. Further in May 2018 taken the new decision for the refund of Rs.1,44,000/- deposited by the complainant as the O.Ps. could not mature the scheme. Rather with specific recital and to avoid litigation has returned Rs.1,44,000/- with illegal deduction and have even not paid the interest for the period of 10 years. In this way, complainant has not been allotted a flat then why O.Ps. have retained Rs.5000/- as well as not given the  interest of the amount deposited in the year 2008. Accordingly, the complaint deserves to be allowed.
14. In the light of discussion made above, the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.1,49,000/- i.e. along with interest on the amount Rs.15,000/- and Rs.1,34,000/- since the date of deposit at the rate interest equal to the FDRs at the prevailing issued by the Nationalized Bank till today with deduction of Rs.1,44,000/- + interest from 19.06.2018 with compensation/cost of Rs.10,000/-.  

15. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.21.02.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER