JUDGMENT 12.1.2011 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1429 /2009 of respondents/complainants was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till actuall payment. OPs were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice. The aforesaid amounts were directed to be paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OPs were made liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 21.10.2009 till actual payment. 2. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ; The OPs who are developers and builders gave an advertisement for registration of allotment of residential plots in their future township project at Belongi,Mohali in response to which complainants applied for registration of allotment of plot measuring 200 sq.yds. on 10.09.2008, vide application Annexure C-1. Alongwith the application, they attached a cheque for Rs.7,25,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Sector 35B, Chandigarh. Thereafter, OPs offered the complainants a residential plot in township TDI City vide their communication dated 30.10.2008. On 24.01.2009 the OPs called upon the complainants to remit the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- in favour of Taneja Developing and Infrastructure Ltd towards 25% of sale consideration. OPs then vide letter dated 22.05.2009 called them to remit Rs.22,15,000/-, towards 70% of the sale consideration and 100% of tentative E.D.C.A.. The complainants on visiting the site of TDI City found that the land on which the plots were to be located had not been acquired by OPs as yet. It was also found that there were no roads connecting to the site and no sewerage material was there at site. The complainants wrote a detailed letter to OPs on 28.05.2009 regarding the above facts but instead of replying the queries of the complainants , OPs vide letter dated 4.08.2009 had cancelled the registration of the plot. It was alleged that the action of OPs canceling the registration was arbitrary as they failed to satisfy the complainants about the genuineness of the offer of allotment and when there was no land acquired by OPs at that time, so it was not justified to call upon the complainants to make payment of the entire sale consideration. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainants filed complaint before the District Forum. 3.. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the alleged booking of the plot was done by OP-2, hence OP-1 had no concern with the booking of the plot or the project, as all the communications were addressed to OP-2. It was pleaded that the complainants had themselves mentioned that the investment was in future scheme and in the present case the letter regarding provisional allotment was duly issued to the complainants on 30.10.2008 and they had sent letter to the complainants for depositing a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- to get priority in allotment. The complainants opted down payment plan, according to which they were to pay 25% at the time of booking, 25% at the time of offer of allotment, 40% within 60 days of offer of allotment and remaining 10% was to be paid at the time of offer of possession. OPs denied if the complainants had ever visited the site. It was recited in the reply that OPs had purchased the land and had paid the dues to the government to obtain the CLU and the layout had already been approved by the competent authority. It was pleaded that the registration was rightly cancelled by them as the complainants had not paid the balance outstanding amount as per schedule. The complainants had filed the complaint on the basis of the application form submitted by them whereas no agreement/contract had been entered into between the parties, therefore, there was no question of any obligation to be complied with the conditions of the application form submitted by the complainant. It was recited in the reply that the complainants had filed the complaint for allotment of cancelled plot amounting to Rs.29,00,000/- which was more than Rs.20,00,000/- which was out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellants/OPs raised the point of pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the value of the plot in question was more than Rs.20.00 lacs and the said plot was situated at Mohali,so the Forum at Chandigarh was not competent to decide these issues. It was also submitted that the OPs had purchased 230 Acres of land for the project and the development work had already been completed in the area where the plot in question was situated. The complainants were also issued provisional allotment letter dated 30.10.2008 but they were not making the payment of installments as per the schedule, therefore, their registration was cancelled vide leter dated 4.8.2009 and they were entitled to get their registration amount refunded as per policy of the company. However, these points have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainants. 6. No doubt, the plot in question was allotted in Mohali but the regional office of OPs was situated at Chandigarh as mentioned in the letter dated 20.10.2008 annexure C-3 issued by OPs to the complainants and the registration amount was also deposited at Chandigarh, so the District Forum at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Further, the complainant had claimed refund of Rs.7,25,000/- in the complaint alongwith interest @ 21% p.a. besides Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation, so as such the amount claimed in the relief part of complaint did not exceed Rs.20.00 lacs, therefore, the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum. A perusal of the file shows that there was no document on the file before the District Forum which could show that the appellants/OPs had got approval of the project prior to the filing of the complaint on 21.10.2009. Not only that the remaining amount of Rs.22.15 lacs was also asked to be remitted as 75% of sale consideration vide letter dated 22.5.2009 annexure C-5 whereas by that time OPs had not been able to give the Khasra number of their ownership showing the exact place of plot alleged to have been allotted to the complainants. In this regard, observations made by the learned District Forum in para-6 of the impugned order is reproduced as under ; “It is not disputed that the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- has been deposited by the complainant with the OP vide draft copy of which is Annexure C-2. The OPs have allotted a plot of 200 square yards vide Annexure C-5. The contention of the complainant is that infact this plot has been allotted only on papers, that the OPs have not purchased any land, there is no development such as roads, sewerage or electricity poles nor the OPs have obtained the permission from the Government for change of land use and therefore the allotment vide Annexure C-5 cannot be made operative. The OPs have disputed this contention, however they have not produced any document to suggest if they have purchased any land for this project. The site plan has been produced by the OPs but that is not authenticated by any authority. This site plan does not appear to have been submitted to the appropriate authority for sanction. The OPs have not obtained any letter of permission from the Government for the change of land use to set up a colony. The contention of the complainant therefore appears to be correct that the allotment of plot has been made only on papers and not actually at the spot and they have not been able to confirm as to which Khasra numbers are owned by the OPs and in which Khasra number the plot of the complainant falls. This all appears to have been done to dodge the complainant and other prospective purchasers by showing them that they have been allotted plots, when actually no plot existed at site. Collecting money from the public on the assurance of allotting plots, when neither the land has been acquired for establishing a colony, nor any permission has been obtained, amounts to an unfair trade practice by which the OP is unjustly enriching itself.” 7.. In these facts and circumstances of the case as the OPs had not been able to show as to whether the plots had been developed at the site, roads and electric pipes had been laid at the spot. In the absence of these facilities, the allotment of plot through the letter alone was meaningless and the learned District Forum rightly directed OPs to refund the amount alongwith interest besides compensation and costs of litigation. 8. In view of our foregoing discussion, we find nothing wrong with the impugned order and the same is accordingly affirmed. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
