DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Complaint No.282 of 2019
Date of Instt.23.07.2019
Date of Decision: 28.09.2021
Davinder Kaur wife of S. Manpreet Singh, 27, Dada Nagar, Model Town, Jalandhar.
….. 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. 232, Ground floor, Block A for a total sum of Rs.3,91,000/- was allotted to Balwinder Paul son of Atma Ram, resident of Village Nangal Karar Khan, Post Office Kukar Pind to the complainant, vide allotment letter no. JIT/4379 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. 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 require 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 but the possession of the flat was not given to the complainant even after repeated and continuous requests since March 2009. After about six months in the month of September 2009, the OP had commenced to write offer letters for delivery of possession of the flats to the flats owners. The complainant was also issued a letter no. JIT/3369 dated 11.09.2009 offering him possession of flat and was asked to pay an additional cost of Rs.60,066/- within nine months of issuance of the above demand letter and additional amount of Rs.2503/- was demnded towards cess charges. The allottees were called by the officials of the OP in its office situated at Skylark Chowk, Jalandhar and some of them visited there and vide possession slip dated 20.11.2009 , OP got signed the memo of delivery of possession of the flat meaning thereby only symbolic possession was given in papers and on visiting at the spot, the allottees found that sub-standard material was used in construction work, work of approach road, works of piped LIG, works of water supply and sewerage connection were pending and there was no explanation from the concerned officials of OP. 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. The complainant has not given possession of the flat allotted to him in the last 11 years and now the complainant is also not interested to wait for any other period rather the complainant is interested to get back entire deposited amount. Therefore, she 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 raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is vague, false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it was averred that on 20.11.2019, the complainant has admitted the fact that wooden work, internal water supply, sewerage, electrification and construction work is satisfactory. The possession of the flat has been handed over to complainant on 20.11.2009. After taking possession the complainant was satisfied and now after a gap of 10 years he has filed the complaint under garb of present complaint. The complainant purchased the property after verifying the spot and being satisfied with the construction. OP written a letter on 11.09.2009 directing the complainant to take the possession within one month from the issuance of the letter. Accordingly a letter was written by the complainant to the OP and order for delivering of the possession was made on 20.11.2009 and took the physical possession of the flat on 20.11.2009. Rest of the averments made by the complainant was denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17, photograph Ex.CB/1 and other documents Ex.CB-2 to Ex.CB-41. 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-2 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. First of all, the LIG Flat No. 232 Ground Floor for a total sum of Rs.3,91,000/- was allotted to Balwinder Paul son of Atma Ram vide allotment letter no.JIT/4379 dated 04.09.2006. After that the flat in question sold to Davinder Kaur now she is original owner of the flat in question. Original allotment letter also placed on record by JIT/OP. The agreement to sell was executed between the parties vide Ex.C-2 on the record. The complainant paid Rs.95,500/- to OP vide receipt Ex.C-4 placed on the record. The complainant further paid Rs.100/- to OP vide receipt Ex.C-5 on the record. The complainant further paid Rs.55,500/- to OP vide receipt Ex.C-6 on the record. The complainant further paid Rs.18,500/- to OP vide receipt Ex.C-7 and receipt Ex.C-8 for payment of Rs.55,500/-. The complainant paid Rs.55,500/- vide receipt Ex.C-9 and Rs.55,500/- vide receipt Ex.C-10 on the record and further deposited Rs.55,500/- vide Ex.C-11 on the record. From perusal of above said receipts, this point is clear that the complainant paid all the amounts of the flat allotted to her in time to OP. The OP addressed letter to the complainant Ex.C-12 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 amounts to OP vide receipts Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-15 of different amounts.
6. Ex.C-16 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 satisfaction of 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-16 possession slip, which is placed on the record. OP written various letters regarding non provision of development facilities in other flats to the concerned authorities time to time, this fact is clear from letters Ex.CB-30, Ex.CB-31, Ex.CB-32, Ex.CB-36 on the record.
7. Firstly, the flat in question allotted to Balwinder Paul and after that he sold the flat to one Smt. Davinder Kaur now he is owner of the flat no.232, Ground Floor, Block A for a total sum of Rs.3,91,000/- . From perusal of possession slip, it is clear that one Mohinder Singh signed this slip on behalf of Davinder Kaur complainant. Balwinder Paul Singh previous owner of the flat in question after that he sold this flat to Davinder Kaur and OP issued allotment letter no.3369 dated 11.09.2009 issued to Davinder Kaur also, which is placed on the record. The original record of the OP also placed on record. Letter no.4014 dated 20.11.2009 addressed to OP regarding possession of the flat in question. After that possession of the flat was delivered by OP to complainant Davinder Kaur and possession slip was signed by one Mohinder Singh who has appeared on behalf of Davinder Kaur complainant.
8. Ex.C-16 is possession slip, which is vital document on the record. The possession slip Ex.C-16 signed by complainant herself, which is reproduced as under:-
“I have take over the possession of LIG Flat no. 232/GF 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.”
In the present case, the original possession slip was also placed on record by OP. This original slip also shows that the possession of the flat in question delivery to Davinder Kaur. This slip was signed by Balwinder Paul previous owner and Davinder Kaur new owner of the flat in question.
9. 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-16. 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 she did not agitate the same. The complainant remained silent for almost eight years as the complaint was filed on 23.07.2019 before this Commission. After lapse of eight years 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, she 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 20.11.2009 and the complainant filed the present complaint on 23.07.2019 after a long span of time which is barred by limitation because 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. As such, lapse on the part of the complainant himself and not on the part of OP.
10. Accordingly, we do not find any substance 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.
11. 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)
