Punjab

Sangrur

CC/629/2015

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

04 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                                       Complaint No. 629

Instituted on:   15.07.2015

                                                                        Decided on:     04.02.2016

 

Om Parkash Gargi aged about 70 years son of Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, R/O H.No.3390, Phirni Road, Inside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through his power of attorney Shri Yash Pal Jindal son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

Improvement Trust, Sangrur through its Executive Officer.

 

             ….Opposite party

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY              :      Shri Pawan Gupta, Advocate

 

 

Quorum

                    

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member.

           

ORDER BY:     

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Om Parkash Gargi complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant was allotted a plot number 107 in 12 Acre SST Nagar Scheme under pensioner quota measuring 200 sq. yards by the OP and full consideration of the said plot has been made to the OP, however, the possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant only on 22.9.2008 against the orders of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the complainant was given three years time for construction on the said plot.  It is further averred that when the  measurement of the plot was made by the engineers of the OP, it was noted by them that the actual area of the plot at the spot was 192 square yards i.e. less than 200 sq. yards.  On the basis of the said report, the concerned Superintendent/EO of the OP made a noting on the letter of the complainant. It is further averred that the Ops have prescribed a particular map for construction of the plot and no one can construct plot as per his own wishes, but as per the prescribed map plan of the OP, which is mandatory.  It is further averred that due to delivery of less area of the plot number 107 allotted to the complainant, the complainant could not start the construction on the above said plot and that the complainant made so many requests to the Op to complete the area of plot number 107 i.e. 200 square yards and every time the OP assured that the same will be completed shortly, but nothing was done.  Further case of the complainant is that the Op has also imposed a fine of Rs.1,60,950/- on the complainant for non construction of the building on plot number 107 within three years from the date of delivery, but since the complainant was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement i.e. to construct the plot, but the OP did not allot 200 square yards complete plot. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to complete the area of plot number 107 i.e. 200 square yards and that the Op be directed not to recover the amount of Rs.1,60,950/- on account of penalty and not to impose any further penalty in future and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is admitted that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant and possession was delivered to the complainant on 22.9.2008. It is stated further that though the OP written so many letters to the complainant to take the possession of the plot, but he failed to do so.  It is further admitted that the plot measuring 200 sq. yards was allotted to the complainant and the plots surrounding to the plot in question has already been constructed by the allottees, so there was no fault of the Op that the area of the plot is remained less than 200 sq. yards.  It is further stated that area of the plot is 193.66 sq. yards at the spot and not 192 sq. yards.  Complainant did not approach to the OP to demark the plots of the other adjoining to the plots of the complainant, but he filed the present complaint, which is hopelessly barred by time.  It is further stated that the complainant never approached to the OP to get sanctioned  the map for construction of the plot.  Rather he has been demanding extension of the time for construction of the plot within three years from the date of delivery of possession from the OP on one pretext or the other without any reasonable cause.   It is further stated that the complainant is correct up to the extent that area of the plot of 193.66 was delivered, but complainant could file the map for construction of the plot as per the existing area, but he did not do so without reason and plausible clause.  It is further stated that the complainant never requested the OP to complete the area of the plot in question, rather he requested to refund the amount which the OP took from the complainant in excess to the actual area given to the complainant.  It is further stated that the OP written so many letters to the complainant to take the possession of the plot in question and to complete the construction as per rules and regulations of the OP, but nothing was done by the complainant.   It is further stated that even the complainant requested the OP vide letter dated 15.3.2012 for waiving the non-construction fee and extending the time limit for construction further for two years for the construction of the plot in question i.e. upto September, 2013 and further requested to waive the non construction fee and extension of time limit for construction for further two years i.e. upto April, 2017 and the complainant also requested through his letter dated 8.6.2015 to refund the amount for remaining 6.66 square yards.  As such, it is stated that the complainant failed to even submit the map for construction of the plot in question. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. 

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 copy of letter, Ex.C-2 copy of order dated 2.3.2009, Ex.C-3 copy of power of attorney, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of letters, Ex.C-6 copy of medical report, Ex.C-7 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of allotment letter dated 30.4.2012, Ex.OP-3 copy of possession letter, Ex.OP-4 copy of possession letter dated 12.9.2008, Ex.OP-5 copy of letter dated 15.3.2011, Ex.OP-6 copy of letter dated 22.09.2008, Ex.OP-7 copy of letter dated 30.5.2013, Ex.OP-8 copy of undertaking, Ex.OP-9 copy of letter dated 30.4.2015, Ex.OP-10 copy of letter dated 8.6.2015,  Ex.OP-11 copy of reply dated 21.7.2013 and Ex.OP-12 copy of map and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact of the parties that the complainant was allotted a plot bearing number 107 in 12 Acre SST Nagar Scheme under pensioner quota measuring 200 square yards and further it is admitted that the complainant was delivered the possession of the plot in question on 22.09.2008 in view of the orders of the Hon’ble National Commission and further a time of three years was granted for construction of the plot in question, meaning thereby the complainant could construct the plot in question uptill 22.09.2011.  But, the case of the complainant is that the OP delivered the possession of the plot in question only of 193.66 square yards, whereas he had already paid for the 200 square yards plot to the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though he approached the OP for delivering the actual possession of 200 square yards plot, but the OP failed to do so.   The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently since the OP failed to deliver the possession of 200 square yards, as such, the complainant could not get the site plan sanctioned from the Op despite his best efforts.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has contended vehemently that the complainant has concocted a false story regarding the construction of the plot in question.  It is contended by the learned counsel for the Op that the complainant never approached the OP to complete the area of the plot in question, rather he requested the Op for refund of the amount of 6.44 sq. yards plot vide his letter dated 8.6.2015, as such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the OP that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

6.             Ex.C-1 is the copy of letter submitted by Shri Sanjay Garg (son of the complainant), wherein it has been clearly mentioned that he has received the possession of the plot number 107 on 22.09.2008 on behalf of the complainant and the plot is of 29 feet x 59 feet 8 inches i.e. 192.89 square yards, whereas the complainant has paid for 200 square yards plot to the OP.  A further perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that there is a report of the Superintendent of the OP, which is read as “Possession of the plot number 107 measuring 192 sq. yards i.e. 29 feet x 59 feet 8 inches given to Shri Sanjay Garg son of Shri Om Parkash Gargi on behalf of his father against allotted plot of 200 square yards on behalf of the report of Eng. Branch”,  as such, it is clear that it was very much in the knowledge of the OP since 22.09.2008 that the complainant has been delivered the possession of 192 square yards plot against the 200 square yards plot. Ex.C-2 is the copy of order of the Hon’ble National Commission dated 2.3.2009, Ex.C-3 is the copy of power of attorney,  Ex.C-5 is the copy of letter issued by the complainant to the OP wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant had been given the possession of 192 square yards plot only,  Ex.C-7 is the affidavit of Shri Yash Pal Jindal, the power of attorney of the complainant. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op as the complainant never approached the OP for getting the site plan sanctioned nor he ever brought to the knowledge of the OP for completing the area of 200 sq. yards, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the OP that the complainant never approached the Op, more so when the report of Superintendent on Ex.C-1 clearly shows that the complainant was delivered the possession of plot number 107 measuring 192 sq. yards only, as such, it is not fair on the part of the OP to contend that the complainant never approached the OP for completing the area of the plot.  Ex.OP-6 is the copy of application submitted by Shri Sanjay Garg son of Shri Om Parkash Gargi, complainant on 30.5.2013, wherein he has clearly stated that the plot of 192 square yards was delivered on 22.09.2008 against 200 square yards and the same is also endorsed by the Executive Officer that 192 square yards was delivered as per the report of Engg. Department.  Ex.OP-12 is the copy of site plan of plots situated in Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar Scheme, wherein the plot number 107 clearly shows that it has an area of 193.33 square yards.  Further Ex.OP-10 is the copy of application submitted by the complainant on 8.06.2015 wherein the complainant requested the OP to refund the amount for remaining 6.66 square as per the current rate with interest @ 12% per annum, but no action was taken by the OP and the OP slept over his request, meaning thereby the OP is bent upon to harass the complainant by not delivering the possession of the complete plot of 200 square yards nor has refunded the amount of 6.44 square yards land to the complainant.  It is also on record that the OP did not even choose to refund the cost/price of area of 6.44 square yards of land to the complainant. Further we feel that since the complainant was allotted a plot of 200 sq. yards, but the possession of the complete plot was not delivered, it is a matter of common knowledge that how the complainant can submit a site plan to the Op for construction of the plot, more so when the OP did not even choose to refund the price of the not allotted land to the complainant nor it is made clear that he has been allotted the plot of 193.66.  Further he complainant has also alleged in the complaint that the Op has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,60,950/- on account of non construction fee upon the complainant, we feel that since the possession of 200 square yards or 193.66 sq. yards is decided to be given to the complainant, the OP cannot impose any penalty upon the complainant on account of non construction fee .  In the circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP either to deliver the complete possession of plot of 200 square yards or to refund the price of 6.34 sq. yards land and till the same is decided, the OP is not entitled to charge any non construction fee and penalty etc. from the complainant. The OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses. 

 

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.      

Pronounced.                                     

 

                February 4, 2016.

                    

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                              President

       

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

       

 

                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member