Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/324

Jupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Sh A.S Dhillon

20 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                   

                                                                           RBT Complaint No. 323

                                                                                                                                             Instituted on:   09.08.2018 

                                                                                                                                             Decided on:     20.05.2024

Rittu Sharma, aged about 40 years wife of Naveen Kaushal, resident of H.No. 38-A, Preet Nagar, Tripuri Town, Patiala, through Power of Attorney Harinder Pal Singh Sidhu son of Jaspal Singh Sidhu, resident of H.No. 2090, Old Lal Bagh Street, Patiala.

                                                                                                                                                    ..Complainant. 

 

                                                                 RBT Complaint No. 324

                                                                                                                                              Instituted on:   09.08.2018 

                                                                                                                                              Decided on:     20.05.2024

 

Jupinder Singh Son of Sh. Rajinder Singh, earlier resident of  H.no. 12, New Lehal Colony, Opp. State College Ground, Patiala, now resident of Flat No. 2-B, Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala.      

                                                                                                                                              ..Complainant. 

                                                                            RBT Complaint No. 325

                                                                                                                                              Instituted on:   09.08.2018 

                                                                                                                                              Decided on:     20.05.2024

Prithpal Kaur, aged about 68 years wife of Surjit Singh Multani, Resident of H.no. 39, Defence Colony, Patiala.

                                                                                                                                              ..Complainant.

                                                                            RBT Complaint No. 326

                                                                                                                                              Instituted on:   09.08.2018

                                                                                                                                              Decided on:     20.05.2024

Surinder Kumar Garg aged about 64 years son of Om Parkash Garg Resident of House No. 61-B, Punjabi Bagh, Patiala.  

                                                                                                                                         ..Complainant. 

                                                                                                                                              RBT Complaint No. 328

                                                                            Instituted on:   10.08.2018

                                                                                                                                              Decided on:     20.05.2024

Rajesh Kumar Mishra aged about 53 years son of Chint Ram Mishra Resident of House No. 81-A, Bachittar Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                                                                                                 ..Complainant. 

                                                                            RBT Complaint No. 329

                                                                                                                                              Instituted on:   10.08.2018

                                                                                                                                              Decided on:     20.05.2024

Dinesh Kumar Mishra aged about 62 years son of Chint Ram Mishra Resident of A-18 BB Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana.

                                                                                                                                                ..Complainant. 

                                                 Versus

1.          Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Chairman.

 

QUORUM                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL        : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                                    : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH                      : MEMBER

 

For the complainant    : Shri Amrinder Singh Dhillon Advocate              

For the OP                   : Shri Amardeep Singh Saran Advocate

 

ORDER BY
KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

As per orders of the Hon'ble State Consumer Commission, vide Endst.No 10226 dated 26.11.2021, the present file received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala vide receipt no.481 dated 30.11.2021 to this Consumer Commission.

 

1. By this order we propose to dispose of the above noted complaints because the questions of facts and law involved in these complaints, except minor variations, are the same. Arguments were heard in common, in the above said cases. Moreover, all the above mentioned complaints the original counsel for complainants is the same. On the other hand on behalf of Op, the original counsel is also the same.
2. First of all, coming to the facts of the RBT Consumer Complaint no. 323 of 09.08.2018 titled as Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust. The complainant has alleged in this complaint that the complainant is the Consumer of Op. Complainant has appointed Harinderpal Singh Sidhu as her special power of attorney holder vide SPA dated 26.7.2012 who is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant has purchase one flat no. MIG-12, 2^nd Floor, 4-B,  Area 1435.09 Sq.Yds. in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala from Op through allotment letter no. PIT/12/1737 dated 18.6.2012. The draw of lots held on 12.3.2012. Tentative cost of the flat was Rs. 35,90,000/-. The above said flat has been purchased by the complainant from Op. The Op work for development of residential and commercial schemes in Patiala. A new scheme was launched by the Op in the name of Sardar Patel Enclave Vikas scheme, Patiala for providing the flats after developing the area alongwith basic amenities. The Scheme was self finance scheme. Under the scheme MIG & HIG flats were to be allotted on the basis of lucky draw. The Op advertised the scheme in several newspapers and Op distributes the brochure.  The consideration money to be paid to the Op in 10 equal installments. The possession of the flats was to be given after 30 months i.e. 2.5 years from the date of issuance of allotment of flats to the allottee. Allotment letter was issued on 18.6.2012 and the agreement was signed between the parties. The complainant deposited 25% of the total value of the flat at the time of the agreement and the remaining amount shall be deposited as per schedule of the payment given by Op.
3. The Op assurance made regarding the completion of flats by October, 2014, but the flats were not completed by the Op within stipulated time. Although, the flats were allegedly completed in October, 2016. But the flats were not handed over as per the terms & conditions in the brochure. At the time of handed over the flats to the allottees, certain amenities are not upto the mark. The quality of the flat is not as per standard norms. The lift in the complex has not made operational. Due to non completion of the required civil and electric works. It is very difficult to go through stairs by the allottee. Some other allottees have challenged the authorities of Op on the ground of delay in delivering the possession of the flats in question. Allottee filed the Consumer Complaints in Patiala Forum. The Patiala Consumer Forum, vide order dated 05.4.2017 allowed the complaint of the allottees. Op filed first appeal in State Consumer Consumer Commission, Punjab.  The State Consumer Commission dismissed the FA No. 338 of 2017 . Then the Op filed Revission Petition in Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, Delhi Against the Order dated 29.9.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Consumer Commission, Punjab. The National Consumer Commission dismissed the Revision Petition of the Op in revision petition no. 3608-3621/2017, Improvement Trust Vs Jaspal Singh Dated 05.06.2018. All the revision petition are allowed with the direction that the complainants shall be entitled to interest, @ as awarded by the Fora below for the period from the committed dated of delivery of possession till the date of actual delivery of possession to them with interest. Complainant’s grievances were given from time to time regarding the construction of the flats to the Ops. But their officials made excuses on one pretext or other. Hence, many of the tasks as mentioned in the brochure of the scheme remain incomplete and are still pending. The cause of action is continuing one. Time to time letters/reminders have been sent to the Op to complete their unfinished work. But Op did not show any interest in the reply of letters. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the Op. But Op did not bother to reply for that notice. The Op delayed the delivery of possession since 27.10.2014 to Dec, 2016 and lastly prayed that the Op may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,94,196/- as per the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, Delhi and further interest from the date of actual payment is made and to pay compensation to the complainant since 27.10.2014 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month as the Op has failed to deliver the possession of the said flat as per the term & conditions of the brochure and to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, Op appeared and filed reply and taking preliminary objection that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. The complainant has no locus standi to file the compliant. Complaint filed by complainant is hopelessly time barred. This Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as per the provisions of the real estate regulation Act, 2016. As per Clause 26 of the brochure, any dispute regarding allotment shall be referred to the secretary, local Government, Punjab as arbitrator for adjudication and decision of the matter. The decision of the Secretary shall be binding upon the parties, but the complainant has failed to avail the said remedy. Further, as per clause 20 of brochure, the allottee after taking the possession of the flat could not raise any claim regarding construction of the flat. As per the terms & conditions of the brochure, the allottee shall maintained the flat at his own cost in satisfactory condition after possession thereof is taken by the allottee and the intended allottee to become the member of the registered body to be formed by the allottee to the scheme for the purpose of maintenance common portion and common services before the possession of flat is handed over him or her. The allottee shall be required to pay a surcharge to the Op at the rate decided by Op per year for maintenance of roads, water supply, drainage, sewerage, street light, lifts and other civil services till these are taken by the municipal corporation, Patiala or then after also. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the Op floated a scheme for fully furnished HIG & MIG flats under the self finance scheme and brochure with terms & conditions was issued by the Op for the allotment of the flats. The flats were allotted to the allottees through lucky draw of lots and allotment letter number PIT/12/1737 dated 18.6.2012 was issued by the Op. The allottee shall be requiring to pay a surcharge to the Op for maintenance of roads, water supply, drainage, sewerage, street light, lifts and other civil services. The complaint is correct that the flats were allotted by means of draw of lot in March, 2012 and the complainant was allotted MIG flat no. 12 of 2^nd floor 4-B, Area 1435.09 Sq.Yds. in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala in the said scheme. The complainant had failed to deposit 25% of the amount within a stipulated period with the Op. It was self finance scheme floated by Op, which means “your house is your investment”. Op has already provided the lift and basic amenities to the allottee. As per the term & condition of the brochure, the allottee has to become registered member of the body to be formed by the allottee to maintain common services. The complainant and other allottees failed to form the society as per the guidelines and terms and conditions of the brochure. In fact, after taking the possession of the flat by the allottee, all the common services provided by the Op to be maintained by the complainant. The possession of the flat will be offered to the allottee “on as is whereas basis” and no complaint was raised by the allottee at the time of possession and lastly prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with exemplary cost.
6. In RBT Consumer complaint number 324 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Jupinder Singh Vs Improvement Trust” in this complaint complainant has alleged that the complainant has been allotted a flat no. MIG 12 1^st floor 2-B in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala. The tentative cost of the flat is Rs. 36,00,000/-. The area of the flat is 1435.09 Sq. Yds. The draw of lots held on 12.3.2012, the Op issued the allotment letter vide memo number PIT/12/1735 dated 18.6.2012 and prayed that the complainant is liable to get Rs. 6,94,196/- as per the order of the Hon’ble NationalConsumer Commission and further interest from the date of actual payment is made and pay compensation to the complainant since 27.10.2014 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month as the Op has failed to deliver the possession of the said flat as per the term & conditions of the brochure and to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. The other facts of the complaint and written version filed by the Op in the previous complaint i.e. RBT Consumer Complaint no. 323 of 9.08.2018 titled as Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust remain the same in the case also.
7. In RBT Consumer complaint number 325 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Prithpal Kaur Vs Improvement Trust”. The complainant has alleged that she has purchased a flat no. HIG 18 fifth floor 15-A Area 1876. 53Sq.yds in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala. The draw of lots held on 12.3.2012. The tentative cost of the flat is Rs. 42,65,000/-. The complainant received allotment letter vide memo number PIT/12/1786 dated 18.6.2012 and prayed that the complainant is liable to get Rs. 6,84,196/- as per the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, Delhi and further interest from the date of actual payment is made and pay compensation to the complainant since 27.10.2014 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month as the Op has failed to deliver the possession of the said flat as per the term & conditions of the brochure and to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. The other facts of the complaint and written version filed by the Op in the previous complaint i.e. RBT Consumer Complaint no. 323 of 9.08.2018 titled as Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust remain the same in the case also.
8. In RBT Consumer complaint number 326 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Surinder Kumar Garg Vs Improvement Trust” in this complaint complainant has alleged that the complainant has been allotted a flat no. MIG 18 3^rd floor 8-C in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala. The tentative cost of the flat is Rs. 32,85,000/-. The area of the flat is 1369.16 Sq. Yds. The draw of lots held of 12.3.2012, the Op issued the allotment letter vide memo number PIT/12/1759 dated 18.6.2012 and prayed that the complainant is liable to get Rs. 6,13,989/- as per the order of the Hon’ble NationalConsumer Commission and further interest from the date of actual payment is made and pay compensation to the complainant since 27.10.2014 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month as the Op has failed to deliver the possession of the said flat as per the term & conditions of the brochure and to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. The other facts of the complaint and written version filed by the Op in the previous complaint i.e. RBT Consumer Complaint no. 323 of 9.08.2018 titled as Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust remain the same in the case also.
9. In RBT Consumer complaint number 328 of 10.08.2018 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust” in this complaint complainant has alleged that the complainant has been allotted a flat no. MIG 18 1^st floor 2-C in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala. The tentative cost of the flat is Rs. 33,05,000/-. The area of the flat is 1369.16 Sq. Yds. The draw of lots held of 12.3.2012, the Op issued the allotment letter vide memo number PIT/12/1747 dated 18.6.2012 and prayed that the complainant is liable to get Rs. 6,17,313/- as per the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission and further interest from the date of actual payment is made and pay compensation to the complainant since 27.10.2014 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month as the Op has failed to deliver the possession of the said flat as per the term & conditions of the brochure and to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. The other facts of the complaint and written version filed by the Op in the previous complaint i.e. RBT Consumer Complaint no. 323 of 9.08.2018 titled as Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust remain the same in the case also.
10. In RBT Consumer complaint number 329 of 10.08.2018 titled as “Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust” in this complaint complainant has alleged that the complainant has been allotted a flat no. MIG 18 1^st floor 3-C in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala. The tentative cost of the flat is Rs. 33,05,000/-. The area of the flat is 1369.16 Sq. Yds. The draw of lots held of 12.3.2012, the Op issued the allotment letter vide memo number PIT/12/1748 dated 18.6.2012 and prayed that the complainant is liable to get Rs. 6,17,313/- as per the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission,Delhi and further interest from the date of actual payment is made and pay compensation to the complainant since 27.10.2014 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month as the Op has failed to deliver the possession of the said flat as per the term & conditions of the brochure and to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. The other facts of the complaint and written version filed by the Op in the previous complaint i.e. RBT Consumer Complaint no. 323 of 9.08.2018 titled as Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust remain the same in the case also.
11. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
12. In RBT Consumer Complaint number 323 of 09.8.2018 titled as “Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust” the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C18 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
13. In RBT Consumer Complaint number 324 of 09.8.2018 titled as “Jupinder Singh Vs Improvement Trust” the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C26 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
14. In RBT Consumer Complaint number 325 of 09.8.2018 titled as “Prithpal Singh Vs Improvement Trust” the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C21 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
15. In RBT Consumer Complaint number 326 of 09.8.2018 titled as “Surinder Kumar Garg Vs Improvement Trust”, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C22 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
16. In RBT Consumer Complaint number 328 of 10.8.2018 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust”, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C21 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
17. In RBT Consumer Complaint number 329 of 10.8.2018 titled as “Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust”, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C23 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
18. The learned Counsel for Op tendered into evidence in RBT Consumer Complaint number 323 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust” Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. Surabhi Malik, IAS, Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala along with documents Ex.OP.1 to Op.3 and closed the evidence.
19. The learned Counsel for Op tendered into evidence in RBT Consumer Complaint number 324 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Jupinder Singh Vs Improvement Trust” Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. Surabhi Malik, IAS, Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala along with documents Ex.OP.1 to Op.5 and closed the evidence.
20. The learned Counsel for Op tendered into evidence in RBT Consumer Complaint number 325 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Prithpal Kaur Vs Improvement Trust” Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. Surabhi Malik, IAS, Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala along with documents Ex.OP.1 to Op.4 and closed the evidence.
21. The learned Counsel for Op tendered into evidence in RBT Consumer Complaint number 326 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Surinder Kumar Garg Vs Improvement Trust” Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. Surabhi Malik, IAS, Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala along with documents Ex.OP.1 to Op.4 and closed the evidence.
22. The learned Counsel for Op tendered into evidence in RBT Consumer Complaint number 328 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust” Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. Surabhi Malik, IAS, Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala along with documents Ex.OP.1 to Op.4 and closed the evidence.
23. The learned Counsel for Op tendered into evidence in RBT Consumer Complaint number 329 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust” Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. Surabhi Malik, IAS, Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala along with documents Ex.OP.1 to Op.4 and closed the evidence.
24. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.
25. Now, come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him/her in his/her prayer or not?
26. It is not disputed that flat(supra) was allotted by means of draw of lot on 12.3.2012 by the Op to the allottee. No doubt, it is admitted by Op reply on merits that the complainants were allotted flats in the scheme(supra). Further, it is admitted by op in reply on merits, the allotment letters dated 18.6.2012 were issued by the Op to the complainants individually. To prove their case complainants filed his/her self attested affidavit on oath. The contents of the affidavit are same as per the pleadings of the complaint. So, there is no need to retreat the same to avoid the repetitions. It transpire from the perusal of the utmost important document which is the brochure issued by Op to launch the scheme in the name of Sardar Patel Enclave Vikas Scheme, Patiala for providing built up flats, after developing the area, alongwith basic amenities. MIG & HIG flats were to be allotted on the basis of lucky draw. As per clause 11 of the terms & conditions of the brochure, it is specifically mentioned that the possession of flats will be provided within two and Half years from the date of issuance of the allotment of the flat to the allottees. It transpires from the pleadings of complaint that the complainant has purchase flat in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala. As per Ex.Op3, allotment letter dated 18.6.2012 issued by the Op to the complainant.  In the allotment letter the tentative cost of the flats has shown the price as per the location of flat which is mentioned in the allotment letter issued by the Op for the complainants/allottees. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchase the flat and paid the consideration amount of the flat in 10 installments. It is writ large on the file, the installments Performa   has been produced by the complainant on record file. From the perusal of representations moved by the president, Sardar Patel Enclave welfare society registered Patiala regarding pending and deficient works of the flats at Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala to the chairman of Op. Further, the residents of the society (supra) moved the letter dated 11.12.2017 to Deputy Commissioner Cum Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala i.e. Op. Again authorized signatory of the society (supra) has given reply to letter of Op regarding maintenance of lift at Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala to trust engineer of the Op. Again, president of the society (supra) wrote a letter to Deputy Commissioner Cum Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala i.e. Op on 09.02.2018.  In this letter president of Society (supra) mentioned long pending unaddressed  grievances of the President of Sardar Patel Enclave Welfare Society, Patiala with regard to incomplete works should have been completed before the very handing over the flats to the owners of the allottees on 06.10.2016. It transpires from the perusal of record file office of DeputyConsumer Commissioner Cum Chairman of Improvement Trust, Patiala i.e. Op forwarded the original application to the Executive Officer of Op to take necessary action as per rules. Before filing the present complaint complainants served legal notice through his/her counsel dated 05.07.2018 in RBT CC 324 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Jupinder Singh Vs Improvement Trust”, in RBT CC 326 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Surinder Kumar Garg Vs Improvement Trust”, RBT CC 328 of 10.08.2018 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust”, RBT CC 329 of 10.08.2018 titled as “Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust”. The legal notice and postal receipts has already been on record. In para no. 2 of legal notice is pleaded that according to clause 11 page no. 6 of brochure of Op is bound to delivered the possession within Two and Half years from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Op delivered the incomplete possession of the flat to the complainants/ allottees after delay of 22 months from the promised date. Thereby, violating the provisions of the letters of allotment for flats. As per Ex.Op.4, sale agreement regarding the flats Executed between the parties on 30.3.2017 in RBT CC 323 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Rittu Sharma Vs Improvement Trust”. In this case complainant has not produced on record any document regarding the sale of flat agreement in question. During arguments the learned counsel for the Op has argued that the allottee Rittu Sharma did not execute agreement for sale of flat till date. This is a direct violation of clause 8 of the allotment letter dated 18.6.2012 which is Ex.Op.3.  As per clause 8 of allotment letter in case the allottee fail to complete the formality within 30 days i.e. execution of sale agreement and the allottee fail to make necessary deposit with the trust, it will be presumed that the allottee is not interested in the flat and the trust will be competent to cancel the allotment. In RBT CC 324 of 09.08.2018 titled as “Jupinder Singh Vs Improvement Trust”, the sale agreement executed between the parties on 30.3.2017 which is Ex.Op.4. Sale agreement received on 11.7.2017 by the complainant. In RBT CC 325 of 09.8.2018 titled as “Prithpal kaur Vs Improvement Trust”, no agreement of sale of flat produced by complainant. In RBT CC 326 of 09.8.2018 titled as “Surinder Kumar Garg Vs Improvement Trust”, in the sale agreement the date of execution not mentioned. In RBT CC 328 of 10.8.2018 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust”, the sale agreement executed between the parties on 06.10.2016. In RBT CC 329 of 10.8.2018 titled as “Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs Improvement Trust”, the sale agreement of flat executed between the parties on 13.10.2016 and received the instrument on 3.11.2016.
27. To trace out the varsity of truth, thisConsumer Commission has considered the primary issue to solve the controversy “Whether the present complaints are time barred under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainants or not”?
28. During arguments, the learned counsel for the Op has argued that as per clause 11 of the allotment letter, the Op will not entertain any request for addition or alteration in the flat, its design, quality of material used, workmanship or any other defect after the possession is taken by the allottee. As per clause 13, the allottees have to become member of registered society to be formed by the trust for the purpose of maintenance of common service in accordance with the sale agreement in this behalf before the possession of the flat is handed over to the allottee. The learned counsel for the Op contended that as per clause 15 of the allotment letter, the allotment of the flat is subjected to the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and the Punjab Town Improvement (utilization of land and allotments of plots/flats) rules, 1983 and the Government instructions as amended from time to time and all conditions as per brochure issued with the application form. Further, argued as per clause 26 of the brochure, any dispute regarding allotment shall be referred to the secretary local Government, Punjab as arbitrator for adjudication and decision of the matter. The decision of the Secretary shall be binding upon the parties, but the complainant has failed to avail the said remedy. It is writ large on the file in RBT/CC/323/2018 to RBT/CC/326/2018, RBT/CC/328/2018 & RBT/CC/329/2018, the complainants issued legal notices dated 05.7.2018 to the Op. The postal receipt of the legal notices dated 06.7.2018 has already been on the record. During argument, the learned counsel for the Op has argued that there is not mandatory  the provisions of Consumer Protection Act to give reply of the legal notice. In RBT Consumer complaint number RBT/CC/323/2018 to RBT/CC/326/2018, RBT/CC/328/2018 & RBT/CC/329/2018,, the learned counsel for the Op has argued that installments from 6 to 10 there is no extra interest/ penalty paid by the complainants to the Op except in case of RBT CC/328 of 10.08.2018, Op imposed penalty on the 6^th & 7^th installment of the flat. Moreover, complainant deposited part payment of against the schedule Performa installment of the flat vide receipt no. 50974 dated 23.4.2015 and receipt no. 52065 dated 23.10.2015 which Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. It transpire from the perusal of pleadings of the complaint, the complainant followed the terms & conditions and instructions of the brochure like as consideration of the flats in question paid by complainants in 10 installments as per installments Performa which is duly produced by the complainant in his/her evidence on record. Further, complainant deposited 25% of the total value of the flat at the time of the agreement as per installments Performa which was duly issued by the Op. The remaining amount shall be deposited as per schedule of payment provided by the Op. The installments receipts paid by the complainant as per the schedule of the installment has been on the record file. In RBT/CC/323/2018 to RBT/CC/326/2018, RBT/CC/328/2018 & RBT/CC/329/2018 as per pleadings of complaint and Ex.CA affidavit of complainant pleaded that the cause of action arouse to the complainant on 27.10.2014 while the complainant issued legal notice to the Op on 05.07.2018 and complaint RBT/CC/323/2018 to RBT/CC/326/2018 filed on 09.08.2018 and, RBT/CC/328/2018 & RBT/CC/329/2018 filed on 10.08.2018. As far as concerned, the cause of action arose to the complainant as alleged is still continuing one to the complainant as pleaded in the complaint regarding washroom are handed over incomplete of the flats in question by the Op. In this scenario, complainant have miserably failed to produce the cogent and reliable evidence that “whether complainant received the possession of the flat under protest and incomplete condition? ” if the flats are incomplete condition. Moreover, to trace out the actual and factual condition of the washroom of the flats photographs had not placed on record by the complainant. However, complainant had not produced any receiving slip/receipt of the flat at the time of taking the possession with regard to incomplete basic amenities.   We feel that the Consumer Protection Act is a special Act. It prevails on the general Act. It is well within the knowledge of the allottees/complainants from the factum of the pleadings of the complaint as well as the affidavit on oath that as per brochure clause 11 provided that the possession of the flats shall be provided within two and half year from the date of allotment of letters. Meaning thereby, the allotment letter issued by op on 18.6.2012 to the allottees/Complainants and the cause of action arose on 27.10.2014 as per pleading of complaint and affidavit on oath to the complainants to redress his/her grievances if any, the cause of action arose to the complainant on 27.10.2014. But the complainants/allottees filed the present complaint on 09.8.2018 & 10.08.2018 respectively. “A Man can lie, but document can’t”. Mere issuance of legal notice dated 05.07.2018 by the complainant qua the Op have not been empowered to enhance the limitation period to file the complaint by the complainant in RBT/CC/323/2018 to RBT/CC/326/2018 filed on 09.08.2018 and, RBT/CC/328/2018 & RBT/CC/329/2018 filed on 10.08.2018. Limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act is Two years from the date of cause of action accrues i.e. 27.10.2014. The present complaint has been filed after three years and ten months approximately from the date of accrual on the cause of action. We feel that the present complaint is filed by the complainant hopelessly barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission has the considered opinion that RBT/CC/323/2018 as per pleadings in prayer of the complaint the complainant pleaded the last installment vide receipt no. 52939 dated10.5.2016 of Rs. 2,73,290/- deposited by her to the Op as consideration amount for flat in question. While on the other hand,, serial no. 2 of the prayer clause the complainant seeking compensation Rs.Rs.15000/- per month since 27.10.2014  In RBT/CC/324/2018 as per pleadings in prayer of the complaint the complainant pleaded the last installment vide receipt no. 52058 dated 21.10.2015 of Rs. 10,80,000/- deposited by him to the Op as consideration amount for flat in question. While on the other hand, serial no. 2 of the prayer clause the complainant seeking compensation Rs.15000/- per month since 27.10.2014. In RBT/CC/325/2018 as per pleadings in prayer of the complaint the complainant pleaded the last installment vide receipt no. 54706 dated 26.04.2017 of Rs. 03,19,875/- deposited by her to the Op as consideration amount for flat in question. While on the other hand, serial no. 2 of the prayer clause the complainant seeking compensation Rs.15000/- per month since 27.10.2014. In RBT/CC/326/2018 as per pleadings in prayer of the complaint the complainant pleaded the last installment vide receipt no. 52820 dated 11.04.2016 of Rs. 02,46,375/- deposited by him to the Op as consideration amount for flat in question. While on the other hand, serial no. 2 of the prayer clause the complainant seeking compensation Rs.15000/- per month since 27.10.2014. In RBT/CC/328/2018 as per pleadings in prayer of the complaint the complainant pleaded the last installment vide receipt no. 52828 dated 12.04.2016 of Rs. 02,47,875/- deposited by him to the Op as consideration amount for flat in question. While on the other hand, serial no. 2 of the prayer clause the complainant seeking compensation Rs.15000/- per month since 27.10.2014. In RBT/CC/329/2018 as per pleadings in prayer of the complaint the complainant pleaded the last installment vide receipt no. 52899 dated 12.04.2016 of Rs. 02,47,875/- deposited by her to the Op as consideration amount for flat in question. While on the other hand, serial no. 2 of the prayer clause the complainant seeking compensation Rs.15000/- per month since 27.10.2014. We feel that the stand of the complainant is itself contradictory with regard to deposited the last installment payment by the complainant of the flat to the Op and complainant claiming the delayed interest amount as per pleading as well as the affidavit on oath since 27.10.2014. Furthermore, the complainant verified the content of the affidavit that the content of the affidavit are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. The burden of prove upon the complainant to prove his/her complaint on his/her own legs with reliable, material and trustworthy evidence on record. We feel that both the parties are bound by each and every terms and conditions of the brochure. No party can go beyond the terms and conditions of the brochure. As far as concerned, the judgment pleaded by the complainant in his/her pleadings the complainant is not the party in that complaint which was held upto by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3608-3621/2017 decided on 22.6.2018. Moreover, as per the pleading of the complaint in page no. 5 the District Consumer Commission, Patiala held vide order dated 5.4.2017 that to hand over the physical possession of the flat complete in all prospects to the complainant as per the scheme. In this juncture, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that the complainant are not seeking possession of the flats in question, so the relief of the judgment pleaded in complaint by the complainant is not helpful in the present complaint in hand. Judgment relied by learned counsel for the complainants are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for Op relied upon judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, Delhi in case titled as “Vijay Bansal Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and others” in Revision Petition No. 3740 of 2011 decided on 10.7.2012. Held that limitation – Condonation of delay- petitioner was allotted plot on 12.3. 1996- complaint filed in year 2007- cause of action arose in 1996- limitation for filing the complaint is two years- cause of action which is complete cannot be recurring cause of action- complaint hopelessly barred by time, dismissed- Cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed.  
29. We hold that all the allottees/complainants have well within in their knowledge regarding the cause of action arose on 27.10.2014 which was duly admitted by the complainant in their pleadings as well as in affidavit on oath. “The person who seeks equity must do equity”.
30. Resultantly,  keeping  in view of the  facts and the peculiar circumstances of the case   in hand  and with  careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record and in the light of decision (supra) passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, Delhi, we dismiss the complaints RBT/CC/323/2018 to RBT/CC/326/2018 filed on 09.08.2018 and, RBT/CC/328/2018 & RBT/CC/329/2018 filed on 10.08.2018
31. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
32. The file be return to the District Consumer  Commission, Patiala. The Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules by the District Consumer  Commission, Patiala .

                            Announced.                                      

                            May 20, 2024

( Kanwaljeet Singh)     (Sarita Garg)         (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)    

   Member                     Member                  President