DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 19.11.2015
Decided on: 5.4.2017
Samarpreet Singh son of Kanwarjit Singh through his Power of Attorney, Smt. Rajinder Kaur D/o S.Jaswant Singh r/o Village Dargapur, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Improvement Trust Patiala, Chhoti Baradari, Near Narian Continental Hotel
, Patiala through its Chairman/Executive Officer.
…………Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.A.S.Dhillon,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Arvind Gupta,Advocate,counsel for Opposite Party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Samarpreet Singh through his attorney Smt. Rajinder Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To deliver the possession of the flat within reasonable time
- To pay Rs.3000/- per day since 27.10.2014, as compensation, on account of the O.P. failed to deliver the possession of the flat under the condition of the allotment
- Not to charge any interest from him till the date of actual delivery of possession of the flat, complete in all respects
- To pay Rs.20,000/-as costs of the complaint
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that, under self financing scheme, he purchased HIG flat No.2-A, First Floor at Sadar Patel Enclave, Patiala, vide allotment letter No.PIT/12/1769 dated 18.6.2012, subject to the terms and conditions, explained and described in the voucher, issued by the O.P., before the purchase of the said flat. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure, the possession of the flat, complete in all respects, was to be delivered by the OP upto December,2014 or after deposit of installments as per schedule. He deposited the last installment to the tune of Rs.3,22,875 on 26.10.2015. He deposited near about Rs. 32lacs with the OP, but it failed to deliver the possession of the flat till today, inspite of the letters written through his attorney. It is averred that the OP is not entitled to recover the interest since 27.10.2014, till the date, the deliver of possession of flat is provided. Due to the non delivery of the possession of the flat, he was forced to live in rented accommodation. There is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. for which he is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and if, there is any grievance regarding the self financed scheme, the complainant can approach to Principal Secretary, Local Bodies, Punjab CHD, who is competent to hear the matter in dispute and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the allotment of the flat and issuance of the documents regarding the allotment is admitted. IT is further admitted that the purchase was subject to terms and conditions as explained and described in the voucher issued by it. It is stated that due to non-availability of electricity from P.S.P.C.L., the possession of the flat could not be delivered and it is going to deliver the possession very shortly.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, sworn affidavit of the Smt.Rajinder Kaur, duly authorized attorney of the complainant, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C13, and closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the O.P. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Lachhman Dass,SDO, Improvement Trust, Patiala, and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the out set, the learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. The complainant for redressal of his grievance should have approached the Principal Secretary, Local Bodies Punjab, Chandigarh, who is the competent authority to adjudicate the matter. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that being a consumer he has rightly filed this complaint before this Forum. We find force in the contention of the complainant because Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy, even if, any remedy is available under some other Act.
7 On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that vide letter bearing No.PIT/12/1769 dated 18.6.2012, Ex.C1, flat No.HIG 18 First Floor 2-A was allotted to him by the O.P.. As per the term No.11 of the brochure/scheme Ex.C3, the possession of the flat was to be given within 2 ½ years from the date of allotment. The first five installments were to be paid without interest and remaining installments were to be paid with interest after the delivery of the possession. As per the aforesaid scheme, the possession of the flat was to be delivered on 18.12.2014. After the delivery of the possession, the allottee would have to make the payment of interest @ 12% per annum. The payment of schedule was mentioned in the allotment letter itself, according to which the complainant made the entire payment. However, till date, the possession has not been delivered by the OP.Thus, it has committed deficiency in service.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the flats were to be allotted under the self financed scheme. The possession of the flat could not be delivered so far due to non-availability of electricity.
9. Admittedly vide allotment letter dated 18.6.2012, Ex.C1, flat No. HIG 18 First Floor 2-A, was allotted to the complainant. From the copies of receipts,Exs.C5 to C12, it is evident that the complainant paid the entire consideration amount qua the said flat to the O.P. From clause 11 of brochure,Ex.C3, the O.P. was to handover the possession of the flat in question within 2 ½ years from the date of allotment. It is admitted by the OP that due to non availability of electricity, the possession of the flat could not be delivered. This fact is also admitted by Sh.Lachhman Dass,SDO, Patiala Improvement Trust, Patiala, in his sworn affidavit, Ex.OPA. In addition to the prayer made in the complaint for delivery of the possession of the flat in question with complete facilities, the complainant has also prayed for issuance of directions to the O.P. to pay Rs.3000/- per day as compensation w.e.f. 27.10.2014 and also not to charge any interest from her till the date of actual delivery of the flat, complete in all respect alongwith litigation expenses.It may be stated that in the case of H.P.Housing Board Vs. Janak Gupta 2009 INSC 627 ( 26 March 2009) ( Civil Appeal No.6346 of 2002), it was clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that in the case of delay, in delivery of possession, award of interest @12% per annum on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, would meet ends of justice. Further in the case of Capt.Gurtaj Singh Sahni and Anr. Vs. Manager Unitech Limited and anr. Consumer complaint No.603/2014 decided on 2.5.2016, the Hon ‘ble National Commission, New Delhi, directed the O.P/builder to pay interest@ 12% P.A. from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainant after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate. It was further held that no separate compensation would be payable to the complainant/s either towards the rent paid by them or for the mental agony and harassment, which they have suffered on account of failure of the O.Ps to perform its contractual obligations.
10. Taking note of above said proposition of law, in the present case also, end of justice would meet, if interest is granted for delayed period. From the perusal of copies of receipts Exs.C5 to C12, it is evident that the complainant has paid some amount before 18.12.2014 ( the expected date of delivery of possession of the flat) and some amount after the said date. Therefore, complainant is entitled to get interest on the amount deposited before 18.12.2014 @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 18.12.2014 and is also entitled to get the interest on the amount deposited after 18.12.2014 @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with costs. The OP is directed as under:
- To hand over physical possession of the flat in question, complete in all respects to the complainant , as per the scheme/brochure in question
- To pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant before 18.12.2014 w.e.f. 18.12.2014 till payment is made
- To pay interest @12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant after 18.12.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till payment is made.
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation
The O.P.is further directed to comply the aforesaid order within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated:5.4.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
