Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/138

Ritesh Mangal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

20 May 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        138

Date of Institution:    29.09.2015

Date of Decision :     20.05.2016

 

Ritesh Mangal s/o Jagdish Parshad r/o Muktsar Road, Near Old Malwa Gas Agency, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                         

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Improvement Trust, Kotkapura through its Chairman/Administrator.

2. Improvement Trust Kotkapura through its Executive Officer.

                                                                  .........Opposite Parties                                                            

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

    

   Present:     Sh Ashu Mittal, ld Counsel for complainant,            

                     Sh Ranjit Singh Kakkar, ld Counsel for OPs,

   (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to withdraw the demand of Rs.2,90,400/-and to register the sale deed in favour of complainant and to pay Rs50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Ops launched a scheme for sale of shops cum flats in the development  scheme known as Ambedkar Nagar Scheme in Kotkapura and demanded applications from general public for allotment of plots and  under said scheme, shop cum flat no 5 and 6 were allotted to Swaran Singh and Barjinder Singh. As per scheme, Ops were to deliver the possession of shop cum flat to the vendees and to develop the Ambedkar Nagar and provide basic civic amenities such as roads, streets, water supply etc and thereafter, vendees were to construct their houses/shops within three years, but when Ops  did not fulfil their promise, said Swaran Singh and Barjinder Singh alongwith some other vendees approached District Consumer Forum, Faridkot and filed a complaint. Vide order dated 24.04.2000, District Consumer Forum, Faridkot directed Ops to deliver possession of said shop cum flat and to provide basic amenities. When Ops did not comply with the order of this Forum, they filed execution and during pendency of execution, Ops promised to develop the said Nagar and to provide basic amenities within six months and execution was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.2001, but even after completion of six months, Ops did not fulfil their promise and thereafter in 2006, said Swaran Singh and Barjinder Singh with the consent of Ops transferred all the rights regarding said shop cum flats to complainant after completion of all requisite formalities and since 2006, complainant has been making requests to Ops to register the sale deed in his favour, but every time, Ops are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. In 2012, Ops served a legal notice to complainant for not raising construction which was duly replied by complainant and thereafter, Ops withdrew the same and also promised to register the sale deed in his favour. After that complainant approached Ops many times with request to register the sale deed in favour of complainant and to provide basic amenities, but all in vain. In August 2015, complainant received notice from Ops, wherein they demanded non construction charges and for getting registered the sale deed in his favour. On receiving the same, complainant immediately approached Ops with request to withdraw the said notice, but they did not budge from their stand and flatly refused to admit his genuine request. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint and has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                          Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5.10.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                      On receipt of notice, OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he is not the original allottee. It is averred that complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as Nagar Council alongwith Swaran Singh Barjinder Singh are the necessary parties to complainant, which complainant has not arrayed. Moreover, plot purchased in resale is still vacant and not getting registered the sale deed is not termed as any type of service. It is further averred that complainant is not raising construction as he has purchased the plot for resale and thus, this is a commercial transaction and complainant is not the consumer under Consumer Protection Act. It is further averred that market has been developed by Ops for commercial activities and thus, successful bidders are not consumers as per Section 2 (d) of the Act. It is mandatory for plot holders to complete all the construction work within three years with prior approval of Trust from the date of taking over the possession over property purchased, but complainant has failed to do so as per rules. It is brought before the Forum that streets and sewerage have been properly laid down and well connected with power supply. Street lights and other basic facilities have been provided to locality and inhabitants are paying for these services. It is asserted that complainant is liable to pay non construction charges as per Government rules issued upon all the Improvement Trusts vide memo no. 5/74/95-4LG I I /18367 Chandigarh dt 26.10.2004. However, on merits, OP has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the averments taken in preliminary objections. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                            Parties were given proper opportunity to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-33 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harpreet Singh Sandhu as Ex OP-1 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs

7                                         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

 8                                    The Ld Counsel for complainant vehemently contended that Ops launched a scheme for sale of shops cum flats in the development  scheme known as Ambedkar Nagar Scheme in Kotkapura and demanded applications from general public for allotment of plots and  under said scheme, shop cum flat no 5 and 6 were allotted to Swaran Singh and Barjinder Singh. As per scheme, Ops were to deliver the possession of shop cum flat to the vendees and to develop the Ambedkar Nagar and provide basic civic amenities such as roads, streets, water supply etc and thereafter, vendees were to construct their houses/shops within three years, but when Ops  did not fulfil their promise, said Swaran Singh and Barjinder Singh alongwith some other vendees approached District Consumer Forum, Faridkot and filed a complaint. Vide order dated 24.04.2000, District Consumer Forum, Faridkot directed Ops to deliver possession of said shop cum flat and to provide basic amenities. When Ops did not comply with the order of this Forum, they filed execution and during pendency of execution, Ops promised to develop the said Nagar and to provide basic amenities within six months and execution was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.2001, but even after completion of six months, Ops did not fulfil their promise and thereafter in 2006, said Swaran Singh and Barjinder Singh with the consent of Ops transferred all the rights regarding said shop cum flats to complainant after completion of all requisite formalities. Letter regarding transfer of ownership in favour of complainant by Ops is Ex C-5 and since 2006, complainant has been making requests to Ops to register the sale deed in his favour, but every time, Ops are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. In 2012, Ops served a legal notice to complainant for not raising construction which was duly replied by complainant. Copy of notice and its reply are Ex C-7 and C-8 respectively. Thereafter, Ops withdrew the same and also promised to register the sale deed in his favour. After that complainant approached Ops with request to register the sale deed in his complainant and to provide basic amenities, but all in vain. In August 2015, complainant received notice from Ops, wherein they demanded non construction charges and for getting registered the sale deed in his favour. Copy of the notice is Ex C-2. On receiving the same, complainant immediately approached Ops with request to withdraw the said notice, but they did not do so and flatly refused to admit his genuine request. Counsel for complainant argued that in the present complaint, this Forum had appointed Mr Vipin Tayal advocate as Local Commissioner with directions to visit the spot and to report whether the said scheme has been developed by Ops and whether basic amenities are provided at that place or not. Said Local Commissioner visited the spot and submitted his report alongwith photographs of spot. Copy of report is Ex C-8 and photographs are Ex C-9 to Ex C-33. The L.C. reported that there are no basic amenities like street light, water supply, sewerage and drainage system. No boundary wall is erected by Ops and whole area is an open space, which is also clear from the photographs filed by L.C. alongwith his report.Complainant has prayed for directing Ops to withdraw the said  demand notice and to pay compensation and litigation expenses for harassment and mental tension suffered by him.

9                                         To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for Ops argued that complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as Nagar Council, Kotkapura alongwith Swaran Singh, Barjinder Singh are necessary parties to complaint. It is argued that plot purchased in resale is still vacant and not getting registered the sale deed cannot be termed as any type of service. It is further argued complainant is not their consumer and this transaction is of commercial type. It is brought before the Forum that complainant is not raising construction as he has purchased the plot for resale and thus, this is a commercial transaction and complainant is not the consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, market has been developed by Ops for commercial activities and thus, successful bidders are not consumers as per Section 2 (d) of the Act. It is mandatory for plot holders to complete all the construction work within three years with prior approval of Trust from the date of taking over the possession over property purchased, but complainant has failed to do so as per rules. Ops averred that streets and sewerage have been properly laid down and well connected with power supply. All the basic facilities have been provided to locality and inhabitants are paying for these services. It is asserted that complainant is liable to pay non construction charges as per Government rules issued upon all the Improvement Trusts vide memo no. 5/74/95-4LG I I /18367 Chandigarh dt 26.10.2004. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                       We have keenly considered the rival contentions made by both the counsel for parties and have perused the record on file very carefully. From the perusal of documents placed on record, it is observed that complainant purchased the flat cum shops in dispute from Ops with their consent through their original bidders Swaran Singh and Barjinder Singh after completion of all requisite formalities and despite repeated requests made by him, Ops failed to register the sale deed in his favour and issuance of demand notice on account of non construction charges amounts to deficiency in service. Ex C-3 is the copy of judgment dt 21.08.2001, passed by this Forum which justifies all the allegations levelled by complainant being true. On the face of it, Ex C-3 speaks about transfer of possession of plot in dispute from the name of Barjinder Singh to the name of complainant. Ex C-2 is the demand notice issued by Ops to complainant on account of not raising the construction at said place. Ex C-8 is the report made by Local Commissioner on 4.05.2016. This report clearly states that though electric poles are erected at said place, but these are not properly arranged and thus, there is no arrangement for street lights and even two three inhabitants of that place have made arrangement of street light at their own level. It is further reported by L.C. in his report that there is no water storage tank or any kind of tubewell and even water supply has also been arranged by residents residing at that place at their own level and some have dug out bore wells in their houses. Moreover, there is no system for sewerage. Only a few residents have sewerage connection from main road, while others have constructed sewerage tanks in their houses at their own level.  No sewerage pipes are laid down in that locality. Said locality/ Ambedkar Nagar is even devoid of basic amenities and what to talk of concrete roads. There are no concrete roads and even some streets are constructed with bricks and some have rough path with ditches in many parts. Most of the part of said locality is lying vacant with foul smell of garbage and water. All the conditions are very bad and said place is not properly maintained or build. Through photographs Ex C-9 to Ex C-33, Local Commissioner has tried to prove this fact.

11                                  Keeping in view aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case with the help of evidence and documents placed on record. Even photographs produced by Local Commissioner strengthen the grievance of complainant and are totally contradictory to the version of Ops that they have provided all basic amenities at said locality. Moreover, in rebuttal and in support of their version, Ops have produced only one affidavit, which has no force and is of no help to defend them as by merely saying that complainant is not the original bidder, does not resolve them of their prime duty of providing basic amenities at that place. It is observed that Ops have been deficient in providing services and in that case, they are not entitled to impose non construction charges and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to Ops to withdraw the demand notice dt 14.08.2015 issued by them and to execute the registered sale deed of shop cum flat in dispute in favour of complainant within one month and are ordered to provide basic amenities at that place within six months. Ops are further directed to pay compensation of Rs10,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses of Rs5000/-. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 20.05.2016            

   

Member                 Member              President

(Parampal Kaur) (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)