BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.100 of 2023

      Date of Instt. 24.03.2023

      Date of Decision: 24.07.2024

Gagandeep Singh, aged about 48 years son of Shri Jasbir Singh son of Shri Gurdit Singh, resident of House No.77/50, Green Model Town, Jalandhar having his Aadhar Card No.5682 7905 2187 through his general attorney, Shri Jasbir Singh, aged about 78 years, son of Shri Gurdit Singh, resident of House No.77/50, Green Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Chairman/Executive Office, Model Town, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Jasbir Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Manoj Dhamija, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant through general attorney, wherein it is alleged that the complainant applied for a 200 square yards plot in the Development Scheme under the name and style of Surya Enclave Extension and deposited an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as earnest money. The complainant also paid Rs.1350/- for application form with brochure. The complainant was allotted plot No.359-D vide allotment letter No.JIT-813 dated 06.06.2016. The complainant deposited full amount of Plot Rs.34,85,150/-. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be given after the development of the site completed with all the amenities and facilities within 2 ½ years, the OP failed to give the possession of the plot. The area where the plot has been allotted is un-inhabitable and un-livable and there was no development. After elapsing of more than 6 years from the date of draw, the OP has not been able to give any valid and satisfactory reason, which tantamount to deceptive and unfair trade practice 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 return the amount of Rs.38,25,150/- deposited by the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit upto the date of actual payment to the complainant. Further, OP 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.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the above noted complaint is not maintainable against the OP in the present form. It is further averred that the present complaint is barred by limitation. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the facts from the Forum. It is further averred 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. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the plot and payment to the same is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied. It has been denied that the plot is un-habitable and unlivable. It has been denied that there was no development on the spot. It is also denied that no facility has been given. Lastly it has been 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 both the parties very minutely.

6.                It is admitted and proved fact that plot No.359-D of the development scheme 94.97 acre known as Surya Enclave Extension was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 06.06.2016, which has been proved as Ex.C-5. The complainant has proved on record the receipts showing the payment of the plot made by the complainant to the OP. The receipts have been proved as Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-6. The contention of the complainant is that despite having complied with all the requirements and full payment made by the complainant, neither the OP had developed the site nor offered possession even after lapse of almost 6 years. Photographs of the area and newspaper cuttings, which highlighted the conditions and progress in the area has been proved on record as Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-14.

7.                The contention of the OP is that the present complaint is barred by limitation, but this contention is not tenable as the news publications and photographs have been proved on record by the complainant, which are from different newspapers and these are from 2022 onwards, which has been proved as Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-14. All these news publication show that the facilities and development in the Surya Enclave Extension is incomplete, meaning thereby there is no development at all. Even during the pendency of the complaint, the OP has not brought on the file any cogent and convincing evidence whereby the OP can establish that the construction work of the plot has already been completed and the same is fit for delivery to the complainant. It has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, in “Manoj Bagroy Vs. M/s N. H. Matcon” in consumer complaint no.429 of 2019, decided on 07.01.2020 that even if the possession is taken by the consumer, it would be a incomplete and invalid delivery of possession for the want of the amenities. It was observed by the Hon'ble State Commission in the above said case that the OP had not obtained the occupation certificate and completion certificate from the competent authorities to enable them to deliver the complete and effective possession to the allottess. Until and unless they obtain such certificate, it cannot be held that complete possession has been delivered and there is continuous cause of action in favour of the complainant till the obtaining of such certificates by the OP and the complaint filed by the complainant was held to be within limitation. So in the absence of this type of evidence from the side of OP, itself shows that the plot in question is still not ready and inhabitable for human being and due to that reason the actual and physical possession has not been given to the complainant, which is clear cut deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP and as such we are of the opinion that after waiting long time, the complainant became frustrated and demanded the return of the money alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

8.                We find there is much substance in the argument of learned counsel for the complainant as the OP failed to deliver the possession for such a long time. Thereafter, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief claimed and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to refund the amount of the plot deposited by the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of making deposits till its realization. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and in case, the same is not done within 45 days, the OP shall be liable to pay additional interest @ 3% per annum to the complainant, on the amount of the Flat deposited by the complainant. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

24.07.2024         Member                          Member           President