| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR Complaint No.251of 2020 Date of Instt. 24.08.2020 Date of Decision: 26.10.2021 Dharam Pal Arora, aged 84 years, son of BhagwanDass, at present resident of 109, Friends Colony, Lane No.2, Near Wadala Chowk, Jalandhar City. Phone 98140-82354. ….. 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. Brijesh Bakshi, Adv. Counsel for the OP. Order Kuljit Singh(President) The present complainthasbeen filed by complainantagainst the OP on the averments that in the month of December, 2006, JIT launched its development scheme adjacent to an earlier developed colony known as Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, situated at Amritsar-Pathankot Bye Pass, Jalandhar and now its new development scheme was name as Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue, G. T. Road Bye Pass, Jalandhar.That the complainant got attracted towards development scheme of OP and since the various nationalized banks were also promoting this development scheme of the Government of Punjab, therefore, the complainant preferred to apply for allotment of plot measuring 500 yards after availing the services of OBC, Jalandhar and applied alongwith payment of application money amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- which was just 10% of the total price of the said plot of 500 sq. yards. That consequently, the complainant was issued allotment letter No.JIT/9194 dated 19.11.2007 and a plot No.443-A measuring 500 sq. yards at a price of 10,000/- per sq. yards totaling Rs.50,00,000/- under the above said development scheme of OP was allotted to the complainant on his application for allotment of plot under General Category. That thereafter as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter, the payments were made after the issuance of allotment letter dated 19.11.2007. That as per above mentioned detail the complainant had deposited 25% amount plus first installment of Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith interest of Rs.1,87,500/- as detailed in the allotment letter itself, as such, the total payment of Rs.24,43,900/- made towards the price of the plot of 500 sq. yards @ Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard was fixed for RS.50,00,000/-. However, the complainant could not make the remaining installment in time as he had fallen seriously and he thought to pay pending payment after his recovery from his illness. Due to his prolong illness, the complainant also could not visit at the site, where the above said plot in question has been situated. That as per the clause no.7 of the allotment letter dated 19.11.2007, the OP undertaken that the plot in question will be made available to the allottee alongwith all the development facilities in the area on making payment of all the installment towards the price development facilities, which were required to be paid within 2 ½ years and the possession of the plot can be obtained upon execution of agreement to sell. Accordingly, the OPs were required to give the possession of the allotted plot upto May, 2010.That although, the complainant was yet to make of the pending installments but when for the purpose of seeking possession of the plot in question, the complainant visited the spot, he was shocked to notice that there was no development at all and it was even difficult to the locate the boundaries of said area of Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue as there were fields with no development activities therein.That on the one hand, the OP keep on receiving the installment towards the price of plot under a developed colony with all the amenities like roads, water supply and electricity supply etc and on the other hand, the OP did not carry out any development activity and as such, failed to deliver the plot to its allotees as well as failed to carry out any development in the said colony of Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue at Jalandhar.That in the month of March, 20015, after getting recovered from his illness the complainant visited the office of Jalandhar Improvement Trust and requested the concerned officers to allow him to make the remaining installment without the payment of any interest and at the moment, the complainant came to know that Jalandhar Improvement Trust vide its letter having memo no.JIT/6017 dated 04-03-2015, was asked the complainant one time payment of the entire amount alongwith penal interest and restoration charges, which were uptill 31-03-2015 calculated at Rs.72,02,282/-.The complainant got a photocopy of the said letter from the office of opposite party which was not sent to the complainant at his correct address rather the same was addressed to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Railway Road, Jalandhar through whom the complainant had got financed his application money of the plot which was 10% of the price of plot. As such, the said letter of the opposite party was not served upon the complainant. However, a true photocopy of the said letter obtained later having memo no. JIT/6017 dated 04-03-2015 on is enclosed as Ex. C-6. That the request of the complainant for making balance amount without penalty and interest was declined by the concerned officers of the Opposite Party by saying that only higher authorities in the Local Body Ministry could waive the penalty and interest. That as such, on dated 17-3-2015, the complainant made a request in his letter written to Local Body Minister, Chandigarh that he may be allowed to make the balance amount without penalty and interest. Later on, the complainant came to know vide letter bearing memo no.5/66/2015 (9) 2SS (1SS2) dated 20-12-2016 issued by Local Body Department that the above said request of the complainant to waive off the penalty and interest was declined. That thereafter, the complainant came to know that most of the allottee of the present scheme as well as for the adjoining development schemes are trying very hard to get the possession of their respective allotted plot but they could not get the delivery of possession of their respective plots even after making the entire payments of the plot to the opposite party. Furthermore, the development activities were not started meaning thereby the opposite party misappropriated the public money for a purpose other than the development of Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue. That as such, the complainant was in a great fix and the complainant thought that he had also fallen into a trap of the opposite party and the complainant instead of making any further payment decided to keep an eye over the development activities of the said development Scheme of the opposite party which is known as Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue.But the opposite party did not carry out any development even after such a long period since the announcing of the launching of the present development scheme meaning thereby, it was the opposite party who kept the complainant awaiting for the development. That vide letter dated 4-10-2018, the complainant was asked to show cause as to why not to forfeit the plot allotted to him in view of the clause no.3 of the allotment letter. Soon after receiving the above said letter of the opposite party, the complainant visited at the site and the complainant was surprised to know that the site of the scheme area was lying in an absolutely ignoredcondition and there was no touch of development at all at the site in question. Despite much propagation about the development of the scheme area, there was no sign of any development at the site. Even it was not possible to identify and locate the plot in question allotted to the complainant at the site nor there were any roads marked or constructed at the scheme site. As such, upon noticing no chances of immediate development of the scheme area and of the plot in question, which was required by the complainant on immediate basis for shifting to Jalandhar, the complainant decided not to deposit any other amount with the opposite party and preferred to get the refund of the already deposited amount. That therefore, in pursuance of the said letter dated 04-10-2018, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and informed the concerned officers that he could pay the remaining amount only if there could be any development work over the said site and since there was no development and in the absence of any development over the site, the complainant could not get possession of his plot, as such, he decided to get the refund of the deposited amount and asked the concerned officers for the same especially when all most the all other allottees were still waiting to get the possession of their respective allotted plot and without carrying out all the promised and proposed developments in the said area, the possession even could not be legally offered to the allottees by the opposite party.That the act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficient in service and unfair trade practice on every person who applied for allotment of plot, including the present complainant as the complainant amongst others was allured for allotment of plot in reasonable and fixed time frame and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund of the total amount of Rs.24,43,900/- deposited by the complainant with the OP, alongwith interest @ 18% till the date of its realization and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. That the present complaint is time barred and hopelessly barred by limitation. The allotment was made vide letter dated 19.11.2007 and the last amount as part payment deposited on 04.11.2008 and thereafter no amount was deposited by the complainant and the complainant since the very first installment was a defaulter. That the present complaint is not maintainable and without any cause of action as the complainant never raised any protest or objection to the development works throughout the period till the issuance of legal notice. That the present complaint is false and frivolous even to the knowledge of the complainant himself and is not maintainable against the OP. That the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party as before filing the present complaint in the year 2015, the complainant had approached the Department of Local Govt. Directorate, Govt. of Punjab Chandigarh for seeking relief of exemption from payment of Penal Interest, Interest on installments etc. but the said relief was not granted to the complainant.That the present complaint is an abuse of process of law. No actionable claim has ever arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the OP.That the flat No.443-A has been allotted to the complainant, vide letter No.JIT/9194 dated 19.11.2007. The terms and conditions has been mentioned in the allotment letter and the possession of the same shall be handed over to the complainant after making the payment of installment as well as completion of documentation by the complainant. That the complainant is barred by his own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed in the present complaint. That the complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts and misstatement and has not approached this Commission with clean hands and deserves no relief from this Commission.On merits, it is admitted that the flat in question has been allotted to the complainant and complainant has also deposited the some installment price of the flat, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.We have also perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the opposite party adopted unfair trade practice by launching the Scheme and inviting applications for the allotment of plots in that Scheme; knowing fully well that it was not in a position to demarcate and allot the plots on account of the dispute already going on between them and the land owners regarding the possession of the land forming part of that Scheme. The possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant, nor the opposite party was/is a position to deliver the same. After the allotment of the plot, the complainant became the ‘consumer’ of the opposite party and the non-delivery of the possession of the plot amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, due to which the complainant suffered loss and injury; as a result of the inflation of the money and the rise in the prices of the construction material. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed therein. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon some citation passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, in the written arguments, reiterated the version of the reply filed by them. It was further contended that opposite parties have already carried out development work in the entire Scheme area by providing all the basic amenities and have spent a lot of finances for the development works. The possession of the plot was duly offered to the complainant, but he did not come forward to take the possession by paying the remaining sale consideration. He is willful defaulter in not depositing all the remaining installments as detailed in the reply. It was further contended that the complaint is time barred. The pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is barred, as the complainant deposited part payment and he sought the refund of the same, along with interest and compensation and total relief claimed is only ₹24,43,900/-. Since the complainant failed to deposit the due installments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, so vide repeated letters, by the Trust, served to complaint for regulations of payments. Even otherwise, the complainant is not entitled to the refund of the deposited amount, as per the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules 1983/1999, as amended from time to time. According to said Rules, the amount can be made only to such applicant, who remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots. However, since after being successful in the draw of lots, the complainant failed to pay due instalments, so he is not entitled to the refund of the deposited amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party complaint is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon following cases: i) Jagir Singh Vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust CC No.179/2018 , Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab and othrs CWP No.1684 of 2014 ; 2012(2) PLJ 410 Hayana Urban Development Authority and another vsVinod Mittal and others; 2015(1) CPJ 365 DLF Southern Towns Pvt Ltd VsDipu C. Seminlal. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the complainant applied for allotment of a plot with the opposite party in their scheme “Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue”, by submitting application form, along with earnest money. He was declared successful in the draw of lots held and was allotted plot No.443-A, under general category, vide allotment letter dated 19.11.2007, Ex.C-3. As per Clause-15 of the allotment letter, the total cost of the said plot was ₹47,00,200/-. The complainant opted for payment of balance sale consideration in instalments. As per Clause-17 of the allotment letter, under instalment plan, 1/4th amount of sale consideration and site plan and agreement fee amounting to ₹9,37,500/- was to be deposited up to 19.05.2008; which was deposited by the complainant, vide receipt Ex.C-4. Balance sale consideration of 75% was to be deposited as per the schedule: As per of the allotment letter, in case of non-payment of scheduled installments in time, interest at the rate of 11% in the first month, 12% in second month, 13% in third month, 14% in fourth month, 15% in fifth month and 16% in sixth month was liable to be charged from the allottee. Further, as per Clause-3 of the allotment letter, if the scheduled installments were not deposited within 6 months, then the allotment of the plot was liable to be forfeited/cancelled and the same could only be restored after charging penal interest, 20% restoration charges and 6% penalty, as per instructions of the Government issued from time to time. As per Clause-7 of the allotment letter, the development activities in the scheme were to be completed within 2-1/2 years of the issuance of the allotment letter and the possession of the plot could be taken after execution of the agreement with the Trust. However, the complainant failed to pay the balance installments as per said payment schedule on due dates. Instead of depositing due installments, he kept on asking for possession from the opposite parties. However, the complainant did not come forward to take the possession, by depositing the remaining sale consideration. It needs to be emphasized that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and agreement executed between the parties; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 567.
12. Similar law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case General Assurance Society Ltd. V. Chandmull Jain 1966 AIR (SC) 1644. Since the complainant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and failed to make payment of all the remaining installments, so the opposite party are justified for cancelling the allotment of the plot, in question, and forfeiting the amount deposited by the complainant. The matter before the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2600 of 2016 (Baljit Singh Sandhu v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 20.09.2016 pertained to the same scheme as involved in the present case. The Hon’ble National Commission upheld the decision of the State Commission, Punjab dated 08.04.2016, vide which the appeal of the opposite parties-Jalandhar Improvement Trust was accepted and the complaint was dismissed for non-payment of due installments by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The ratio of the above said decision of the Hon’ble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable, in view of the own default of the complainant in making payment of the remaining installments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. There is no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. 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 26th of October 2021 Kuljit Singh (President) Jyotsna (Member) | |
