BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.476 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 29.12.2020

      Date of Decision: 07.08.2023

Suresh Bala, aged 52 years, wife of Sh. Rajesh Sahni, resident of H. No.154, Kapurthala Road, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Jalandhar Development Authority, (earlier PUDA), PUDA      Complex, S.C.O. No.41, Opp. D. C. Complex, Jalandhar, through    its Chief Administrator.

2.       Estate Officer, Jalandhar Development Authority, (earlier         PUDA), PUDA Complex, S. C. O. No.41, Opp. D. C. Complex,        Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

Present:       Sh. M. S. Jass, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. A. S. Saini, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant applied for Residential Plot in the 178.37 Sq mtr. Category at Gandhi Vanita Ashram (PUDA Doaba Complex), Jalandhar after paying earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- and was a successful bidder in the e-auction conducted by OPs between 15-03-2018 to 19-03-2018, for Plot No.21, Gandhi Vanita Ashram (PUDA Doaba Complex), Jalandhar for an amount of Rs.70,80,932/-. As per terms and conditions of OPs, the successful bidder has to deposit 15% of the bid amount in 30 days from the date of auction and allotment letter was to be issued within 30 days after the payment of 25% of Bid amount. Being a Successful bidder, as per terms and conditions of OPs, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.6,49,711.87 paisa on 22-03-2018, vide receipt No.60. On 05-04-2018, vide receipt no.75, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,62,140/- (i.e. Rs.9,50,000/- and Rs.1,12,140/-). As such the complainant fulfilled all the terms and conditions and deposited the required amount Rs.19,17,851.87 paisa i.e. 25% of Bid amount and 2% amount as Cancer Cess, within prescribed time. As such, the complainant was entitled to receive allotment letter within 30 days from 05-04-2018 i.e. the date when the complainant deposited 25% of Bid amount, but no allotment letter was received by the complainant even after repeated visits to the office of OP. After approaching a number of times by the complainant, instead of receiving allotment letter, the complainant received a letter dated 20-06-2018 from OP No.1 whereby it was stated that the Plot allotted to the complainant is having size of 287.06 Sq mtr. instead of 178.37 Sq. mtr. and as such, the total Bid amount of the said Plot is Rs. 1,13,95,708/-. Therefore, the complainant was directed to deposit another amount of Rs.11,64,989/- (25% bid amount + 2% cancer cess of the enhanced amount of Rs.30,76,841) in addition to amount already deposited by the complainant. The complainant who is a Teacher having fixed salary, had applied for the said Plot as per her status and capacity and after receiving the above said letter she was shocked and surprised. As such, the complainant sent reply dated 25.6.2018 to the above said letter and made a request for refund of an amount deposited by her or to give alternative plot. The complainant had clearly mentioned in the reply about her limitations as well as her inability to purchase the said plot which was very much costly for her. Thereafter the complainant many times approached the OPs for issuance of allotment letter or for some alternative option, but the OPs dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Later on the OP started saying that if the complainant wants to get refund of her amount deposited with OP, then they will deduct 10% of the amount deposited by the complainant. Under the said threats and compulsion, the complainant vide letter dated 21-05-2019, again made a request to the opposite parties for the acceptance of above said amount of Rs.11,64,989 and later on again sent a Letter dated 29.5.2019 requesting therein for the issuance of allotment letter of Plot No.21 after depositing the additional amount of Rs.11,64,989/-. As per consent of the OPs, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.11,64,989/- vide receipt no.56 dated 29-05-2019, which was duly accepted by the OP without any objection and the complainant also informed the OPs by sending a letter that she has deposited the amount and therefore allotment letter may be issued to her. Even after the receipt of an additional amount of Rs.11,64,989/-, no allotment letter was issued to the complainant, which is to be issued within 30 days from the receipt of such amount. Once again harassment of complainant was started even after deposit of said amount and the opposite parties again lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant made number of personal visits to the office of the opposite party and also made written representations dated 05.07.2019, 26.07.2019, 14.8.2019 and 20.8.2019 for issuance of allotment letter to her, but all in vain. After passage of about three months, the opposite party sent a letter dated 13-08-2019 to the complainant, whereby they made a demand of interest and also sent a proposal for alternative plots of 178.37 Sq. mtr. The complainant is being harassed by the above said OPs on one pretext or the other. The Plot in question which was allotted to complainant is having 80 ft. wide road and the plots for which the OPs have sent a proposal is having on 35 ft. road, which clearly shows that the Plot allotted to complainant is more valuable than the Plots for which proposal was sent to the complainant and therefore higher bid was made of this plot. The letter issued by the OP was illegal and sent just to harass the complainant because since the day of allotment i.e. in last 17 months, no such proposal was sent to the complainant. The said letter was duly replied by the complainant vide reply dated 30-08-2019 in which the complainant also requested the OPs through her reply that either allotment letter of this plot no.21 may be issued to her or alternative plot of 178.37 having 80 ft. road may be given to her. Even thereafter the complainant approached the OPs personally and also through correspondence, and as many as 5-10 representations but all in vain. The complainant has completed all the formalities of depositing the amount as per the terms and conditions of the OPS but even till date, the OPs failed to issue the allotment letter. Due to above stated acts and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental pain, tension and agony for no fault of the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to issued allotment letter of Plot No.21, Gandhi VAnita Ashram Jalandhar and be also handedover the possession of the said plot to the complainant. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. Further OPs be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date when the complainant was entitled for possession.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant is not the consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 2019 as the complainant has purchase the plot in question in an open auction conducted by the OP for the plot in question. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service in part of the OP. The complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act, conduct and admissions. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the plot in question in an open auction conducted by the OP for the plot in question, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant applied for residential plot in 178.37 sq. mtr. category at Gandhi Vanita Ashram, Jalandhar. The copy of E-auction detail has been proved as Ex.C-1. The terms and conditions of the auction have been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-2. The receipt issued by the OP after receiving a sum of Rs.6,49,711.87 on 22.03.2018 Ex.C-3 and the receipts of the remaining payment of Rs.10,62,140/- has been proved as Ex.C-4, which was dated 05.04.2018. Even after the receipt of the payment, the allotment letter was not issued to the complainant within 30 days from 05.04.2018 i.e. the date when the complainant deposited 25% of the bid amount. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, the allotment letter was to be issued to the purchaser within 30 days after receipt of 25% of the bid amount. The complainant has proved a letter Ex.C-5, vide which the complainant was informed that the auction was conducted regarding 178.37 sq. mtr., whereas the size of the plot on the spot is 287.06 sq. yard and the complainant was asked to deposit the remaining 25% of the amount + 2% cancer cess amounting to Rs.11,64,989/-. This letter was issued on 20.06.2018. The complainant in reply to the letter, informed the OPs that she is unable to purchase the said plot, which is costly and made a request for refund of the money or to allot the plot of same size i.e. 178.37 sq. mtr. Again, she wrote a letter Ex.C7 to the OP on 21.05.2019 mentioning in detail that she has been visiting the office of the OP quite often and wrote a letter to refund the money, but neither the money was refunded nor any other plot of 178.37 sq. mtr. was allotted. She has mentioned in the letter Ex.C-7 that she is ready to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,64,989/- i.e. 25% of the plot 287.06 sq. mtr. Again, she wrote a letter Ex.C-8, vide which she has informed the OP that she had deposited the amount of Rs.11,64,989/- on 29.05.2019. The receipt has been proved as Ex.C-9. Again she wrote a letter on 26.07.2019 Ex.C-10 alleging that despite the deposit of the money of 25% as demanded by the OP, she has not been allotted the allotment letter. In reply to the letter, the OP on 13.08.2019 issued letter that if she wants the plot of size of 178.37 sq. mtr., then she can take the plot no.32 to 35, vide Ex.C-11. Again she wrote a letter to the OP Ex.C12, vide which she has categorically alleged that she has deposited the entire money, but she has not been given the allotment letter and have wrongly demanded the amount of surcharge and penal interest of Rs.1,99,341/-

7.                The contention of the OP is that it is the complainant, who is at fault as she had not deposited the amount of 25% to the OP, which was the pre condition of the allotment letter. Since, she had not deposited, therefore, she is liable to pay the surcharge and penal interest. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.                This contention of the OP is not tenable. Perusal of all the documents, as discussed above, written to the OP by the complainant, it is clear that the deficiency in service is on the part of the OPs as the auction was conducted regarding 178.37 sq. mtr. plots in which the complainant was highest bidder, but the size was measured and it was found 287.06 sq. mtr. This is the fault of the OP as they should have considered this fact prior to making auction. For the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the size is to be measured afterward, then again the complainant expressed her inability to pay the money and wrote a letter within time which was never replied by the OP nor considered by the OP nor any refund was made by the OP nor any other plot was ever offered by the OP. Again when the complainant deposited the 25% amount of the big plot of 287.06 sq. mtr. on 29.05.2019, then as per the terms and conditions, the allotment letter was to be issued by the OP within 30 days, which has been issued by the OP on 02.03.2023, which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The OPs have executed the sale deed also on 19.04.2023, which is much after and with delay without any fault of the complainant. Now the OPs are demanding the surcharge and penal interest for no fault of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The OPs are directed to waive the surcharge and penal interest, which has been demanded illegally for no fault of the complainant. The complainant was never offered any other plot of 178.37 sq. mtr. nor the allotment letter was issued within 30 days, therefore, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant is ready to deposit the balance amount as per law and she is directed to deposit the amount as per law, terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Further, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                              Jyotsna                        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

07.08.2023                    Member                               President