DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Complaint No.572 of 2019
Date of Instt.03.12.2019
Date of Decision: 28.09.2021
Amandeep Singh son of Sh. Surinder Singh, resident of 68, Seth Hukum Chand Colony, Jalandhar City.
..….. Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, through its Chairman/Administrator
……Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. R. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Deepak Sidana, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Kuljit Singh(President)
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OP on the averments that LIG Flat no.104, Ground floor, for a total sum of Rs.3,91,000/- was allotted to complainant, vide allotment letter no. JIT/4630 dated 04.09.2006 by JIT as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the said allotment letter under its residential flats to be constructed near village Salempur Musalmana Tehsil and District Jalandhar under its 13.96 acres scheme, which was named as Indira Puram (Master Gurbanta Singh Enclave). The very first payment towards the earnest money of Rs.18,000/- was paid by the complainant before the allotment of flat, which was also acknowledged by OP. As per clause no. 15 of the allotment letter, allottee was required to deposit subsequent installments from time to time. The installments were paid by the allottee i.e. complainant, which has been specifically mentioned in para no.3 of the complaint. The complainant was asked to pay additional costs i.e. enhanced amount along with additional cess fee thereon, which were paid by the complainant. Before and after payment of all the installments towards the sale price of the flat allotted by OP, the complainant approached officials of OP for completion of paper formalities as described in the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and OP was required to hand over possession of the flat within scheduled timeframe but inspite of repeated requests and demands, the possession of the flat was not delivered after scheduled time period of two and half years from the allotment of the flat as mentioned in clause no. 7 of the allotment letter. Upto the month of March/April 2009, all the payments fee costs of documentation and interest on the delayed payments towards the sale price of the flat were made as per the demands raised by the officials of the OP but the possession of the flat was not given to the complainant since March 2009. Upto the month of March 2009, all the payments, fees cost of documentation towards the sale price of the flat, were made as per the demands raised by the officials of the OP. Only symbolic possession was given in papers vide possession slip dated 13.07.2012 and thereafter the complainant was called at the spot for delivery of physical possession of the flat and on visiting at the spot, the allottees found that sub-standard material was used in construction work, work of approach road, the works of piped LPG, works of water supply and sewerage connection were pending and there was no explanation from the OP to the above defective and incomplete works. Upon taking the possession of the flats by the allotees from various other defects, the allottees found that construction material and fittings were not according to ISI/PWD standards. There was not proper work of road, there was no supply of water in the flats and sewerage pipelines were not connected. The space left for community hall is lying vacant but community hall has also not been constructed. Water supply to the flats is not proper. In the absence of aforesaid basic amenities and development facilities in the flats, condition of flats was not worth lying yet all the other allottees were forced to take possession of their respective flats on account of threats by OP to charge Chokidara cost of Rs.1000/- per month for a single flat. Therefore, he had filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to provide all the promised and proposed amenities in the complex as well as the said flat in question, to award penal interest @ 18% on the entire amount deposited for the flat for the period from March 2009 i.e proposed date of delivery of flat, till the date, besides Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by averring that LIG Flat no. 104 Ground Floor, Block A Vikas Scheme Indrapuram Jalandhar has been allotted to the complainant vide letter no. JIT/4630 dated 04.09.2006. The terms and conditions have been mentioned in the allotment letter, as per clause no. 5 of the said letter, the complainant was required to execute the agreement for sale within 30 days from the issue of the allotment letter along with two witnesses and complainant failed to complete the formalities and documentation on time for the execution of the agreement for sale between the complainant and OP. It is further specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that possession of the flat shall be handed over the complainant after making the payment of installments as well as completion of documentation by the complainant and he has also given the affidavit which is a forged and fabricated one and given the same by concealing the true facts from the OP. The complainant has failed to deposit the first installment being due on 04.03.2007, third installment being due on 04.03.2008 and last installment being due on 04.03.2009. The complainant did not come forward for taking the possession of the flat up till 09.05.2012. As per clause no.3 of the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale executed between the complainant and OP, it is clear that possession of the flat shall be delivered by the OP to complainant on as is where is basis and it was also agreed by the complainant that he shall maintain the flat at his own costs in satisfactory condition after possession thereof is taken by him. The OP denied all the averments made by the complainant even on merits and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 alongwith copies of documents Ex.CB-1 to ExCB-38 and close the evidence. To refute this evidence, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer Jalandhar Improvement Trust Jalandhar as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and close the evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.
5. This fact is admitted that a LIG Flat No. 104 Ground Floor for a total sum of Rs.3,91,000/- was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter no.JIT/4630 dated 04.09.2006. This fact is clear from perusal of allotment letter Ex.C-2, which is placed on the record. The complainant paid Rs.95,500/- to OP vide receipt Ex.C-3 placed on the record. The complainant further paid Rs.660/- to OP, vide receipt Ex.C-4 on the record. The complainant further paid Rs.55,500/- to OP vide receipt Ex.C-5 on the record. The complainant paid Rs.55,500/- vide receipt Ex.C-6 and Rs.55,900/- vide receipt Ex.C-7 on the record and further deposited Rs.55,500/- vide Ex.C-8 on the record. The complainant also deposited Rs.50/- vide receipt Ex.C-9 and Rs.58,300/- vide receipt Ex.C-10. From perusal of above said receipts, this point is clear that the complainant paid all the amounts of the flat allotted to him in time to OP. The OP addressed letter to the complainant Ex.C11, which is placed on the record. Vide this letter, OP intimated the complainant that the flat in question is ready, you can take possession of the same within 30 days from the date of allotment. The complainant further paid Rs.42,547/- to OP vide receipts Ex.C-12 on the record and Rs.15,022/- vide receipt Ex.C-13 placed on record. Ex.C-14 is copy of possession slip, which is signed by the complainant himself.
6. Ex.C-14 is vital document on the record. This photocopy document is possession slip. From perusal of this slip, it is clear that he has take the possession of the flat in question with satisfy the wood work, internal water supply, sewer, electrification and construction work. This document signed by complainant himself and he cannot deny this. The complainant alleged in his complaint that OP has not deliver the possession of the flat to him but he has take the possession of the flat, this fact is clear from Ex.C-14 possession slip, which is placed on the record. OP written various letters regarding non-providing of facilities in flats to the concerned authorities time to time, this fact is clear from letters Ex.CB-9, Ex.CB-12, Ex.CB-15, Ex.CB-18, Ex.CB-19, Ex.CB-20, Ex.CB-23 and Ex.CB-32 on the record.
7. The flat in question allotted to the complainant and complainant admitted that he has received the allotment of the flat and after that he has also take delivery of the possession of the flat. This fact is clear from Ex.C-14 possession slip, placed on the record. The complainant has received the possession of the flat with all basic amenities and he satisfy with the same. The possession slip was signed by complainant himself, he cannot deny the same.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon citations in support of his case i.e. case titled as Ajinder Singh Vs. PUDA & Ors in First Appeal No. 811 of 2019 decided on 11.06.2020 of Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh that OPs are liable to deliver the possession of the flat in question complete in all respects along with agreed facilities and completion certificate issued by competent authority and to execute the sale/conveyance deed in his favour. The case titled as Mohit Babbar Vs. JIT decided on 20.05.2021 in First Appeal No. 35 of 2021 by Hon’ble State Commission Pb. Chandigarh that appeal is allowed with refund along with interest including compensation amount and cost of litigation. Further case law titled as Karamjit Singh Vs. JIT in First Appeal No. 59 of 2014 decided on 04.12.2015 by Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh.
9. On the other hand, OP relied upon citations Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K Sood reported in 2006(1) JCR 42 by Hon’ble Supreme Court that complaint filed beyond the period without application for condonation of delay. State Commission and National Commission erred in entertaining the same. Vijay Kumar Vs. JIT decided by District Consumer Commission Jalandhar in Complaint Case No. 208 of 2019 decided on 05 February.
10. The complainant produced on various citations in support of his case, but same are not applicable in the present case because in the present case, Ex.C-14 is possession slip, which is vital document on the record. The possession slip Ex.C-14 is document of the OP placed on record by the complainant himself and he signed the same, which is reproduced as under:-
“I have take over the possession of LIG Flat no. 104/GF/13.96 Acre in Development Scheme 13.96 Acre (Master Gurbanta Singh Enclave) Indra Puram from Jalandhar Improvemet Trust, Jalandhar. The wood work, internal water supply, sewer, electrification and construction work is satisfactory.”
11. Perusal of above said possession slip shows that complainant had taken the possession of the flat in question after satisfying with all requirements as mentioned in possession slip Ex.C-14. The complainant being a literate person signed the possession slip in English language after understanding the same. If the complainant was aggrieved then he should have agitated the matter at that very point of time or immediately after that, but he did not agitate the same. The complainant remained silent for almost eight years as the complaint was filed on 03.12.2019 before this Commission. After lapse of sufficient period, the complainant cannot ask for refund of the amount. The case law relied upon by Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(2) CPR 522 titled as Jagrut Nagrik and another Vs. C.K Shah and another is applicable in the present case. As per this case, the defects in the construction of flats. Alleged that possession of flat was given without providing modern facilities. No legal steps taken by the complainant against OP immediately after delivery of possession. If there was defect in the building then complainant should have taken appropriate legal steps against the OP immediately after delivery of possession. The complaint is barred by limitation as per this citation of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi which is applicable in the present case. The above said possession slip itself established that the possession was taken by the complainant, he was very well satisfied with the work done in the construction of the flat as well as facility provided by OP. If facilities were not provided then why the complainant has to give remarks on the possession. We find that possession was handed over to the complainant on 13.07.2012 but the complainant filed complaint ON 03.12.2019 after long time which is barred by limitation. As per provision, a consumer complaint can be filed within two years from the date occurring a cause of action and in the instant complaint, if any cause of action accrued to complainant the day when he get the possession, but he remained silent for a long time.
12. Accordingly, we do not find any substances in the plea of counsel for the complainant, therefore, complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties will bear their own costs.
13. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
28th of September 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
Jaswant Singh Dhillon
(Member)
