BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.413 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.11.2014

Date of Decision :17.06.2015

Avtar Chand son of Ram Lal R/o 135-RA Bazar, Topkhana, Jalandhar Cantt.

..........Complainant Versus

The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Chairman.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Asa Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.DK Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant was allotted flat No.309 2nd Floor HIG, Super Development Scheme 12 Kanal 1 Marla (Gazigulla), Dana Mandi Road, Jalandhar vide letter No.JIT-1203 dated 8.6.2011, which was received by the complainant very late on 24.6.2011 about 15 days late from the date written on the top of the letter. The complainant, choosing to pay the total price of the flat in installments as per terms and conditions at serial No.19 of the allotment letter, paid the initial payment of Rs.5,19,500/- by D.D.No.494697 drawn on PNB, Jalandhar on 14.7.2011 which was due on 7.7.2011 and it was paid within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the letter on 24.6.2011. Again the complainant paid the first installment of Rs.4,87,500/- vide DD No.495239 dated 6.12.2011 which was due on 7.12.2011. These payments were duly accepted by the officer/accountant of the Trust. The first draft No.494687 dated 14.7.2011 was returned to the complainant vide letter No.JIT 2269 dated 14.12.2011 on account of being deposited late by 7 days only. The complainant requested and applied for the condonation of the said delay of one week to the chairman of Improvement Trust who could by law and legal authority condone it. But the case of the complainant was not considered by the chairman himself as per his legal authority, but was sent to the department for decision of the condonation of delay, which caused further delay. The complainant's case was referred to the government department after 18.2.2013 vide letter No.5194 dated 10.5.2012 and letter No.8697 dated 18.2.2013 seeking directions in the case of the complainant further delaying the just decision for the condonation of one week's delay by the chairman. The representations by the complainant were made on 4.4.2012 and 4.12.2013 by request letters. Non acceptance of these representations amounts to deficiency in services. The complainant has not been informed as yet about the decision of the department for the condonation of delay of 7 days for depositing the initial payment of Rs.5,19,500/- with the Trust. The first draft No.494687 dated 14.7.2011 was returned to the complainant vide letter No.JIT 2269 dated 14.12.2011 on account of being deposited late by 7 days only and also returned the second draft dated 6.12.2011 due on 7.12.2011 which was not delayed at all and which was in time. The complainant did not know the fate of the flat allotted to him but it is certain that it has not been disposed off or sold off up till now. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for setting-aside the cancellation of the flat in question and further confirmation of the said allotment of flat to him by allowing him to make the payments of installments with interest or penalty as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant has admitted to have been allotted flat No.309, 2nd Floor HIG, Super Deluxe in Development Scheme of 17 Kanal 1 Marla, Dana Mandi Road, Jalandhar and in confirmation received letter of allotment of dated 8.6.2011. He was required to deposit 1/4th price of the plot within 30 days. On its failure to do so, the allotment so made was liable to be canceled and its was done so for non compliance of the above essential condition. The complaint neither disclose consumer dispute nor any cause of action has accrued to the complainant on any score or of allotment nor has the locus-standi to demand condonation of delay in submitting initial amount within the specified period as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The complaint is time barred. It is denied that he made the payment of Rs.5,19,500/- within a period of thirty days. Initial payment in time was to make his allotment in order. The acceptance of payment at any stage did not amount to condonation of delay in making the initial payment which was essential condition for valid allotment. There is no provision of condonation of delay in making the initial payment when the time and period is stipulated. The request was rightly not considered. The representations were without any merit. The allotment was canceled on 22.11.2013 as is admitted by him. Cancellation was to follow in course of time as the payment of initial installment was sent late by the complainant. The question of penalties and interest for delay was not under issue as the allotment itself was canceled. Hence, there was no deficiency in service in cancellation of allotment under the facts and circumstances.

It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OA and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant.

6. Without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the present complaint, we are of the view that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. Ex.C1 is allotment letter and as per allotment letter the price of the flat was Rs.26 Lacs. The complainant is praying for setting-aside the cancellation of the flat and further confirming the allotment of the said plot to him by allowing him to make payment of installments with interest etc as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. So complainant is asking for allotment of the flat in question, the allotment of which has been canceled by the opposite party Trust. In our opinion, where prayer for setting-aside of the cancellation of the allotment of the flat and further confirmation of the allotment of the flat to the complainant by allowing him making payments of remaining installments is made then value of the flat is to be taken into consideration to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The value of the flat is Rs.26 Lacs which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant for presentation before Hon'ble State Commission after making necessary endorsement on it. There shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

17.06.2015 Member Member President