DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 181 of 3.5.2016

                                      Decided on:   4.5.2021

Ravinder Singh Bhalla s/o Sh.Gujjar Singh R/o 443, Sector 15, Panchkula

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. Executive Officer Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Y.R.Mangla,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Arvind Gupta,counsel for OPs.                               

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Ravinder Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Improvement Trust,Patiala and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that  the OPs  vide its scheme  called Vikas Scheme operated from 12.9.2009 to 12.10.2009 demanded the applications from the general public by giving advertisement in leading newspapers and offered allotment of 15 HIG flats of 1978 sq. feet , in the sum of Rs.24.45 lacs for first floor, Rs.24.35 lacs for second floor, Rs.24.25 lacs for third floor, Rs.24.15lacs for fourth floor and Rs.and Rs.24.05lacs for fifth floor. Similarly they also offered the allotment of 30MIG flats of 1600 sq.feet in the sum of Rs.19.60lasc for first floor, Rs.19.60 lacs for second floor, Rs.19.50 lacs for third floor, Rs.19.50 lacs for fourth floor and Rs.19.30 lacs for fifth floor.As per the said scheme in addition of paying the said amount ,4% cess was also to be paid by the allottee in case of its allotment. Accordingly Joginder Singh S/o Wasawa Singh R/o 14-A, New Adarsh Nagar, Jaladhar was successful in getting the allotment of flat No.6A in the category of MIG at second floor of the said scheme.Thereafter the complainant purchased the said flat from Joginder Singh through his attorney Aditya Bhatnagar s/o Sh.Sham Kishore Bhatnagar r/o 4924,Aroria Street, Patiala after clearing all the dues of the OP. The OP also issued re-allotment letter No.PIT/13/1137 dated 2.5.2013 in favour of the complainant .The possession of the flat was to be delivered by 25.9.2012 after getting the payment of Rs.7.35 lacs and thereafter the remaining amount of Rs.7.35lac was to be deposited by the allottee with 12% interest.  It is averred that the   entire   amount   of  the  flat   was    deposited by the complainant through original allottee after tendering the amount of Rs.98000/- as transfer fee. It is further averred that the OP did not deliver the possession of the flat till 25.9.2012 and the same was delivered to the complainant in June,2014.The complainant took the possession under protest as there was no basic amenities i.e. water, sewerage and electricity.
3. It is further averred that complainant received another letter No.PIT/1059 dated 8.4.2016 for the deposit of enhancement charges, without mentioning the amount in the said letter and also without assigning any reason. From the said act and conduct of the OPs the complainant suffered from financially, mentally and also physically. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to provide basic amenities at the site of the flat, to refund interest amount with interest; and also to make the payment of rental value of Rs.15000/- per month from 25.9.2012 onwards till the providing of basic amenities; to pay cost of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment  being suffered by the complainant and also to pay another amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable without serving legal notice to the Trust, that the complainant is not a consumer and that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as the original allottee is Joginder Singh s/o Wasawa Singh of Jalandhar and all the due amount was deposited by Joginder Singh. It is admitted that 4% cess was also taken as per the instruction of the Govt. It is also admitted that letter was written to the complainant for deposit of enhancement amount/charges. It is submitted that the complainant deposited the installments as per schedule and no interest has been taken from the complainant. It is also pleaded that the possession of the flat was not delivered earlier due to non availability of the electricity to be provided by PSPCL but this problem has been resolved and the complainant is not entitled for the refund of any amount or any compensation. After denying all other averments, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Narinder Singh, JE Patiala Improvement Trust alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
8. Written arguments on behalf of the OPs have also been filed. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is resident of Panchkula and the OP has given the advertisement for the scheme operated on 12.9.2009 to 12.10.2009 for the allotment of HIG and MIG flats. The ld. counsel further argued that Joginder Singh s/o Wasawa Singh r/o 14-A, New Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar was successful in getting the MIG category flat No.6A at the 2^nd floor and the flat was allotted. The complainant purchased the said flat from Joginder Singh through his attorney Aditya Bhatnagar after clearance of the dues and OP had also issued re-allotment letter in favour of the complainant..The ld. counsel further argued that the possession was to be delivered on 25.9.2016 but the possession was not delivered on time. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP issued letter dated 8.4.2016 and has demanded enhanced charges but no amount was mentioned. The ld. counsel further argued that basic amenities have also not provided and OP be directed to provide basic amenities and also pay rental charges of Rs.15000/- per month from 25.9.2012 onward.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that S.Joginder Singh s/o Wasawa Singh was original allottee. The flat was transferred on 2.5.2013.The ld. counsel further argued that 4% cess was also taken as per instruction of the Govt. from S.Joginder Singh. The ld. counsel further argued that basic amenities have been provided, so the complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove the case complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is advertisement,Ex.C2 is allotment letter in the name of Joginder Singh,Ex.C3 is letter re-allotment letter in the name of Ravinder Singh Bhalla, Ex.C4 is the deposit of transfer fee of Rs.98000/-.
12. On the other hand, Sh.Narinder Singh, JE Patiala Improvement Trust has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is the letter to complainant,Ex.OP2 is also letter to complainant,Ex.OP3 is material document, it is an agreement between Aditya Bhagnagar  attorney of Joginder Singh. It is mentioned that he was allotted MIG flat No.6A , block A, 2^nd floor of Sewa Singh Thikri Wala Nagar under the scheme of  Improvement Trust scheme and he had showed the flat to Ravinder Bhalla s/o Gujjar Singh, r/o @ No.443, Sector 15, Panchkula. At No.7 it is mentioned that at the spot the flat is in perfect condition. Ex.OP4 is the affidavit of Ravinder Singh, in which it is mentioned at para no.9 that  at the spot the flat is in perfect condition and he has seen the flat in question. So this affidavit of the complainant which is duly signed by him totally demolishing his complaint as he has himself written that at the spot the flat is complete and in perfect condition. Now after giving this affidavit on 27.2.2013 he cannot say that the flat was not in perfect condition and amenities have not been provided to the flat. Has there  been any defect then Ravinder Singh Bhalla should have mentioned the same in his affidavit, Ex.OP4.
13. So due to our above discussion, there is no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.         

ANNOUNCED

DATED:4.5.2021         

                                             Y.S.Matta               Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                                     President