Punjab

Patiala

CC/18/482

Kulvinder Singh Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H.P.S Sidhu

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 482 of 21.12.2018

                                      Decided on:         15.2.2023

 

 

Kulvinder Singh Dhillon aged about 60 years son of Sh.Gurbax Singh Dhillon, Resident of HIG Flat No.1A, First Floor, Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala.

 

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Chairman.

 

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

QUORUM

 

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

 

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

                             Sh.Arvind Gjpta, counsel for OPs.            

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Kulvinder Singh Dhillon (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Improvement Trust, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainant are as under:

That complainant purchased one HIG Flat No.1-A, in Sardar Patel Enclave, Patiala, which was got transferred through allotment letter No.PIT/15/1121 dated 13.5.2015.

It is averred that a new scheme was launched by the OP in the name of Sardar Patel Enclave Vikas Scheme (Near Khalsa College),Patiala for providing built up flats, after developing the area alongwith basic amenities and other facilities as per the brochure issued. Under the said scheme MIG and HIG flats were to be allotted on the basis of lucky draw. Hence the original allottee was allotted HIG flat No.1-A on 1^st floor by means of draws of lot in October, 2012. He deposited 25% of the total value of the flat at the time of agreement. The mode of payment was to be payable in 10 equal installments, payable bi-annually with no interest on first five installments and the remaining 5 installments were payablewith interest, provided if, the possession of the flat was handed over to the allottee.The flats were neither completed nor handed over upto December,2014 and were completed in October,2016 but when possession of flats were handed over the were not in accordance with the specifications mentioned in the brochure of the scheme by the OP. The complainant alongwith other residents of the area requested OP many a times for completion of work. Several letters in this regard were also written to OP but no action was taken. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony, physical harassment and also financial loss to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3.  Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement having taken various preliminary objections. It is pleaded that original allottee Sanjeev Singla on 1.4.2015 applied for NOC to sell the said flat to the complainant and the same was issued on 8.4.2015.Sanjeev Singla, original allottee  applied for transfer of his flat in the name of complainant. Accordingly original allottee and the complainant submitted documents mentioning therein that Trust has given the complete possession and is correct on the spot. The agreement in this regard is dated 28.4.2015, in favour  of the complainant.
4. On merits, it is submitted that possession of the flat was given in October,2016.The complainant was already in possession of the flat as per agreement mentioned above .After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the averments, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents ,Ex.C1 copy of allotment letter,Ex.C2 copy of schedule of payment,”Ex.C3 copy of possession letter,Ex.C4 to Ex.C10 copies of payment receipts, Ex.C11 copy of bank loan account, Ex.C12 copy of broucher,Ex.C13 copy of permission to transfer of flat, Ex.C14 copy of order of Hon’ble National Commission,Exs.C15 to C17 copies of letters to Improvement Trust,Ex.C18 copy of affidavit of Sanjeev Singla and Kulvinder Dhillon, and closed evidence.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Gora Lal, Executive officer alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of letter dated 1.4.2015,Ex.OP2 copy of letter dated 8.4.2015,Ex.OP3 copy of transfer letter dated 19.4.2015, Ex.OP4 copy of affidavit of Sanjeev Singla, Ex.OP5 copy of affidavit of Sanjeev Singla, Ex.OP6 copy of agreement of Kulwinder Singh Dhillon,Ex.OP7 affidavit of Sanjeev Singla for transfer of flat in question and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8.  From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the flat in question was originally allotted to one Sanjeev Singla S/o Sh.Faqir Chand through allotment letter bearing No.PIT/12/1768 dated 18.6.2012 as is evident from the copy of agreement,Ex.OP7.
9.  As per the averments of the complainant possession of the flat was to be delivered upto to December, 2014, after completion. Thus in the first instance the cause of action had arisen for filing the complaint in the year 2014 when possession was to be delivered. Therefore, he could challenge the same before this Commission within two years  i.e. upto December,2016. 
10. Ld. counsel for the OP has argued that original allottee Sanjeev Singla vide letter dated 1.4.2015, Ex.OP1 applied for NOC to sell the flat in question. In the said letter he has also mentioned that he has checked the flat, which is OK in all respect. Accordingly, possession of the flat was delivered to him on the said datei.e. 1.4.2015.
11. From the above, it also transpires that 2^nd cause of action for filing the present complaint had arisen on 1.4.2015, when possession of the flat in question was taken over by the original allottee Sanjeev Kumar. The OP issued ‘No Objection Certificate on 8.4.2015, copy of which is Ex.OP2.  Thereafter, Sanjeev Singla, (original allottee) applied for transfer of his flat in the name of complainant vide copy of letter Ex.OP3.
12. Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the flat in question was transferred in the name of complainant through allotment letter No.PIT/15/1121 dated 13.5.2015, the copy of which is Ex.C1. Even though, as per this letter also  cause of action  for filing the  complaint was accrued to the complainant in the year 2015 and could file the complaint upto 2017 .  But he did not knock the door of the Commission within the period of limitation of two years. Thus, we are left with no option but to dismiss the complaint for want of limitation.
13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,  the complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.

85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President