DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/59/2018

Date of Institution : 07.05.2018

Date of Decision : 02.09.2019

Manish Jindal s/o Sh. Prem Pritam Jindal resident of House No. B-IX/ 169, Near Parbhat Cinema, Barnala, District Barnala.   

            …Complainant

Versus

1. Improvement Trust, 22 Acre Scheme, Barnala through its Executive Officer.

2. Improvement Trust, 22 Acre Scheme, Barnala through its Administrator/Chairman.

              …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite parties

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Manish Jindal has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against Improvement Trust Barnala through its Executive Officer and another (In short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the plot No. 229 having an area of 150 Sq. meter (180 Sq. Yds.) in the Rose Avenue/Tobha Scheme, Barnala was transferred in the name of complainant by the opposite parties vide letter No. ITB-0/307 dated 4.3.2012 with all rights and liablilties of the original allottee. The said scheme is called as Tobha Scheme as has deep pits that are about 15' deep and launched in the year 1996. 

3. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them for possession and demarcation of said plot alongwith basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, street lights, boundary wall, metal roads and parks etc as per the advertisement/brochure so that the complainant be able to construct his house for living purpose but the opposite parties continuously avoided the complainant on the pretext that this scheme has been pits so the demarcation is impossible due to which no possession can be given to the complainant and no basic amenities can be provided.

4. It is further alleged that on 19.8.2015 the opposite parties told the complainant that after measuring it was found that the actual area of the plot of the complainant is 180.6 Sq. meters (216.72 Sq. yds.) instead of 150 Sq. meter (180 Sq. Yds.) and approached the complainant that if he is ready to pay for the excess area of the plot at the rate of allotment price then the excess area to the tune of Rs. 30.6 Sq. yds will be allotted to him and no extra charges will be taken from the complainant for which he has agreed. After that the opposite parties passed a resolution No. 94 dated 29.3.2016 for the same and asked the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,52,638/- including interest of Rs. 1,06,384.20. The complainant objected to this that mistake of delay in measurement was on the part of the opposite parties so he is not liable to pay the interest and he is ready to pay the amount on the basis of allotment price. The scheme was launched on 1996 and measurement took place on 19.8.2015 so the delay is on the part of the opposite parties. It is further alleged that due to negligence of opposite parties people of nearby areas and safai thekedars in connivance with the opposite parties and civil authorities started dumping garbage in the said scheme and filled it with unhygienic material causing diseases in the area. Further, in connivance with trust authorities some land mafia have illegally encroached upon a big area of the scheme which causing theft, snatching etc in the nearby areas. The complainant requested many times to the opposite parties to give him demarcation and possession of plot alongwith basic amenities and remove garbage from the said scheme so that he may construct his house on the plot and able to live there with his family but to no effect. The complainant also requested the opposite parties if it is not possible for them to give him demarcation then allotted him a plot of same size in nearby scheme of the Improvement Trust. On 14.6.2017 the opposite parties issued a letter to the complainant to deposit 1.5 times of collector rate for the allotment of excess area and complainant immediately approached the opposite parties to withdraw the said letter but they refused to do so as the complainant is not interested to purchase the said excess area. This act of the opposite parties is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. So, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs:-

1) For directing the opposite parties to give possession and demarcation of plot No. 229 in Rose Avenue/Tobha Scheme Barnala alongwith basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, street lights, metal roads, boundary wall and parks. 

2) To remove the garbage from the scheme. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of excalation in construction cost. 

4) To pay the interest on monthly basis on allotment price from the date of payment till giving the possession and demarcation of the said plot alongwith basic amenities. 

5) To give an alternative plot of the same area in adjoining colonies to the complainant.

6) To pay Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.

7) To pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as mental agony and harassment.

8) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.  

5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written reply taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, estoppal, not come to the Forum with clean hands, no jurisdiction, non joinder of necessary parties and not come to the definition of consumer dispute. 

6. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had purchased the plot from Lajpat Rai son of Gurdas Ram, Shehna who purchased the said plot from original allottee Devinder Singh son of Jagat Ram of Barnala. The scheme in which plot is situated is called Superdenty Toba Scheme and said plot was allotted to Devinder Singh and at that there were no deep pits of 15 feet. Further, the complainant after purchasing the said plot submitted an application to the opposite parties on 12.8.2015 in which complainant only made a request for the execution of the sale deed in his favour. The plot is having all the facilities which is clear from the report of Tehsildar, Barnala. Further, on measurement of plot it was found that the actual size of plot was 180.6 square meters instead of 150 square meters and the size of the plot was in excess by 30.6 square meters so resolution dated 29.3.2016 was passed by the opposite parties whereby complainant was required to pay Rs. 1,52,638/- including interest up to 31.8.2015 for the excess area of plot so that necessary sale deed could be executed in his favour. This resolution was sent to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government for approval who vide letter dated 25.5.2016 directed to the opposite parties to take action as per letter No. 17754 dated 4.12.2013 so opposite parties sent letter dated 14.6.2017 to the complainant to give his consent for allotment of excess area and complainant would have to follow the instructions contained in letter dated 4.12.2003 but he never cared to respond the letter dated 14.6.2017 and filed the present complaint. The complainant approached the opposite parties first time for getting the sale deed executed in his favour in the year 2015 by moving an application so there was no delay on the part of the opposite parties. All the basic amenities have been provided by the opposite parties for the plot in question. Further, as soon as the complainant will comply with the instructions of the State Government and will pay the charges of the excess area to the opposite parties the necessary sale deed would be got registered in favour of the complainant by the opposite parties. There is no procedure for allotment of any other plot in any scheme to the complainant. Further, the area of the plot on measurement at the spot has been found to be in excess so the opposite parties cannot get the sale deed registered for lesser area and sale deed can be executed of the entire area of the plot including the excess area provided the complainant is ready to pay for the excess area as per the instructions of the State Government and to comply with the letter dated 14.6.2017 issued by the opposite parties to him. So, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Lastly, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

7. To support his case the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of form B as Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 19.7.1996 as Ex.C-3, copy of transfer letter dated 14.3.2012 as Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 11.8.2015 as Ex.C-5, copy of report as Ex.C-6, copy of verification list as Ex.C-7, copy of letter dated 14.6.2017 as Ex.C-8, copy of regulation 29.3.2016 as Ex.C-9, copy of map as Ex.C-10, copy of tender notice as Ex.C-11, copy of pamphlet as Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence.  

8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravinder Kumar Executive Officer  Ex.O.P.-1, copy of letter dated 14.6.2017 as Ex.OP-2, copy of resolution dated 29.3.2016 as Ex.OP-3, copy of letter dated 12.3.2018 as Ex.OP-4, copy of letter dated 21.2.2018 as Ex.OP-5, copy of report as Ex.OP-6, copy of letter dated 11.8.2015 as Ex.OP-7, copy of indemnity bond as Ex.OP-8, copy of letter dated 25.5.2016 as Ex.OP-9, copy of letter dated 4.12.2013 as Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.  

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through. 

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the plot in question was transferred in the name of the complainant vide letter dated 14.3.2012 Ex.C-4. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant moved an application Ex.C-5 which was received by them on 12.8.2015 for registration of the plot in his favour. It is also admitted by both the parties that on measurement it was found that plot in question was in excess by 30.6 Square meters which was actually 180.6 Square meters (216.72 Square yards) instead of 150 Square meters (180 Square yards). Further, it is admitted by the complainant that opposite parties issued a letter dated 14.6.2017 Ex.C-8 vide which they have demanded 1.5 times of collector rate for the allotment of excess area i.e. to the tune of Rs. 1,52,638/- including Rs. 1,06,382.20 as interest on the basis of resolution dated 29.3.2016 Ex.C-9, so that further action be taken. 

11. Now the main question before us whether the opposite parties can raise the demand of the amount of excess area of the plot in question or not ?

12. To prove that the opposite parties are legally entitled to raise the demand of the amount of excess area of the plot in question they relied upon copy of resolution No. 94 dated 29.3.2016 Ex.OP-3 in which it is clearly mentioned that the plot No. 229 measuring 180 Square yards was allotted at the rate of 321/- per square yard but the same was sold as per site. But as per report of Engineering Branch the actual measurement of the plot at the spot is 216 Square yards and as the plot is more than 200 Square yards so as per Trust Rules the price of the said plot become 1.5 times of its reserve price of Rs. 321/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 481.50/- per square yard will be recovered. Accordingly, they have demanded Rs. 46,254/- as the difference of rate and Rs. 1,06,384.20 as interest from 19.7.1996 to 31.8.2015 at the rate of 12% per annum totaling Rs. 1,52,638/- from the complainant vide letter dated 14.6.2017 Ex.OP-2. But the complainant has not deposited this amount with the opposite parties or sent any reply to the letter dated 14.6.2017 to them. In our view as the plot was allotted as per site so the opposite parties cannot execute and register sale deed in favour of the complainant for the lesser area and they only can register the sale deed of entire area of the plot including the excess area. Further, the complainant with his application dated 11.8.2015 Ex.OP-7 for registration of plot in his favour also filed an Indemnity Bond in which he specifically undertaken that he is bound to pay excess price of the plot in question. He further undertaken that he is bound to agree with the instructions issued by the department time to time. So, the complainant already vide this Indemnity Bond dated 11.8.2015 Ex.OP-8 gave his consent to pay the excess price of the plot and to abide the instructions of the department issued by them time to time. So, now at this stage he cannot wriggle out from his undertakings and he is bound to pay the excess amount demanded by the opposite parties vide resolution dated 29.3.2016 Ex.OP-3. In our view the opposite parties can raise the demand of the amount of excess area of the plot in question and complainant is bound to pay the same if he wants to register sale deed in his favour. 

13. The complainant also mentioned in his complaint that there is no water supply, sewerage, street lights, boundary wall, metal roads and parks in the said scheme. To rebut this plea of the complainant the opposite parties placed on the file report of Tehsildar Barnala in which he mentioned that a team of technical experts inspected the plot of some Ravi Kumar in Superdenti Toba Scheme.  He also mentioned that the road was made in front of the plot of Ravi Kumar and sewerage is also lying there which is also attached with the main sewerage. The pipes for drinking water are also lay out in the scheme and poles for street lights are also situated there. It is also mentioned that electricity wires already lay out in the colony but as there is no residence in the colony so there is no electricity connection in the said scheme. There is also a park in the said scheme and also  boundary walls at two sides of the colony. In our view there are many basic amenities already provided to this scheme. It is mentioned in this report that there is no residence in the colony and as and when people starts residing in this colony remaining facilities will also be provided to the said scheme. In this way, the plea of the complainant that there are no basic amenities in the colony is of no force. 

14. Remaining prayers of the complainant regarding to pay escalation in construction costs, interest on monthly basis and allotment of alternative plot are baseless and there is no document filed by the complainant to prove the same. He has not filed any photographs of the colony to prove that there was garbage in the area. Even he has not moved any application for appointment of any Local Commissioner to prove the exact position of the scheme. 

15. In view of the above discussion complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. So, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation due to peculiar circumstances of the present complaint. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

     2nd Day of September 2019 

 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

 

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member