BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.127 of 2017
Date of Instt. 03.05.2017
Date of Decision: 21.05.2019
Gauri Shanker S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Vij aged about 33 years r/o WG-265 Islamabad, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, Through its Chairman
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Arvind Sharda, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Manoj Dhamija, Adv Counsel for the OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP, in the year 2009, proposed to develop a housing scheme in the area of Guru Amardass Nagar, Jalandhar. The said scheme was floated under the name of Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex) under which, apart from others, Low Income Group (LIG) flats were proposed to be constructed by the OP. Accordingly, complainant applied for a flat in the said scheme by completing all the formalities. Afterwards vide letter bearing No.7911 dated 28.01.2010, the OP informed the complainant that he was a successful allottee of LIG flat, bearing No.91-A, 2nd Floor development scheme 51.5 acre (Bibi Bhani Complex), Guru Amardass Nagar, Jalandhar. The complainant was given option to deposit the entire value of the flat in question within 30 days i.e. upto 26.02.2010 and in that case, the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.4,71,319/-. In case the complainant opted for making payment through installments, then the complainant was required to deposit 1/4th of the value by 26.02.2010 and rest of the 75% amount was to be deposited in 10 six monthly installment amounting Rs.39,882.50 each. The complainant opted for second option and deposited a sum of Rs.95,149/- in the first instance and deposited the rest of the amount in 10 installments as per the offer letter dated 28.01.2010. The last installment towards the value of the flat in question was paid by the complainant on 28.01.2015. As per the terms and conditions provided to the complainant mentioned in the allotment letter itself, the OP was to deliver possession to the complainant after the receipt of the entire value of the flat. After deposit of the entire amount of the flat in question, the complainant inquired from the OP as to the date, when the possession of the flat in question would be delivered to the complainant. To this, the OP told the complainant that there was a dispute between the OP and the contractor, who was given contract for the construction of the flat in question. The complainant was further informed that due to the said dispute, the construction was yet to be completed so the complainant could not be given possession of the flat in question. It was a sudden shock for the complainant, who was anticipating to shift his residence to the flat purchased by him with the hard earned money. Then complainant again in the month of June, 2015 approached the OP and requested for handover the possession of the said flat, but the OP refused to handover the possession citing some reason. Afterwards the complainant contacted the officials of OP time and again and OP assured the complainant that the possession would be handed over to him in near future after the settlement of dispute with the contractor. Then again on 25.04.2017, complainant approached the OP for delivery of possession of the flat, but OP disclosed the complainant that they were not in position to handover the possession of the flat in question to the complainant and there upon the complainant make a request for refund of the amount, but they refused on the pretext that there was no clause in the allotment letter for refund of the amount and the act and conduct of the OP amounts to restrictive 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 refund the amount of Rs.6,15,241/-, which was paid by the complainant to the OP along with interest @ 18% per annum from 10.02.2015, till its realization and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental harassment to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.33,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form nor under the law. Rather the complaint is infructuous and further averred that the complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the answering OP and even the complainant is trying to harass the answering OP by filing the instant complaint. It is further alleged that no cause of action accrued to the complainant for filing the present complaint and further submitted that the complainant has filed the instant complaint, which is false, frivolous, just to harass the answering OPs. The complainant had concocted a false story and is not entitled to any relief because there was no delay on the part of the answering OP. The complainant never approached the answering OP for taking possession, as alleged. The answering respondent never alleged any differences with the contractor, as alleged by the complainant. The answering OP never stated about any delay in giving possession, as alleged. The construction has been completed, a notice for handing possession over has already been given to complainant, but he has refused to take the possession of the property. The real motive of the complainant is that he never had any plans to get possession of the property, but just had invested his money and he is demanding heavy interest of 18% of the whole amount, which he himself had deposited over the time span of 5 years. He could not make a better investment, as no bank could give such an interest on amount deposited by him. He just have made a false story and feels he would be successful at getting his money multiplied and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum in regard to apply for allotment of plot by the complainant as well as alleged flat was allotted to the complainant, is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 and then closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.
5. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The case set up by the complainant is only that he was allured by the OP that there is a scheme, which was floated under the name of Vikas Scheme 51.5 acre (Bibi Bhani Complex) under which, apart from others, Low Income Group LIG flats were proposed to be constructed by the OP and from the allurement of the OP, the complainant also applied for the LIG flat and accordingly, vide letter No.7911 dated 28.01.2010, LIG Flat bearing No.91-A was allotted to the complainant and as per allotment letter, the complainant deposited the 1/4th amount of Rs.95,149/- and remaining amount was deposited by the complainant by 10 installments as per the allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, but the OP miserably failed to deliver the possession of the LIG flat within a stipulated period as elaborated in the allotment letter Ex.C-1 dated 28.01.2010 and as such, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount as well as compensation.
7. The case of the complainant has meeted out by the OP simply taking a plea that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP rather the complainant himself deposited the installment over and above the span of 5 years and moreover, the OP has already sent a letter dated 08.05.2017 to the complainant to take the possession of the flat, but the complainant himself at fault by not taking the possession and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief, being reason there is no fault, negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
8. From the above allegation of the complainant as well as counter allegation of the OP, itself revealed that the complainant has deposited the entire consideration of the LIG flat and the allegation of the OP that the complainant has deposited the said installment over and above the span of 5 years, but this aspect of the OP is not acceptable or having no force in the eyes of law because as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010 Ex.C-1, the amount is to be deposited by way of 10 installments alongwith interest, means the amount is to be deposited from July, 2010 to January, 2015 and if we go through the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, wherein at Page No.3, the detail of payment has been described by the complainant, which is apparently deposited by the complainant as per the date given in the allotment letter. So, this version of the OP is not a true one. Further, OP alleged that a letter was sent to the complainant to take a possession, but the said letter has not been brought on the file by the OP rather the same has been brought on the file by the complainant, which is Ex.C-14 dated 08.05.2017, whereby asked the complainant to get the possession and its reply has been given by the complainant, which is Ex.C-15, wherein categorically informed the OP that the construction of the LIG flat is not completed, then the complainant filed the instant complaint and accordingly, filed an application for appointment of the expert Local Commissioner and accordingly, vide separate order of this Forum, appointed a Civil Engineer to visit the spot and submit his report and whose report is available on the file Ex.C-17 dated 25.09.2017, wherein categorically recorded by the Local Commissioner that the work of the flat is not 100% completed, if the work of the flat is not completed, means the same is not in a deliverable condition to the complainant rather the OP sent a letter Ex.C-14 dated 08.05.2017 to the complainant to get possession is false and concocted one, just to create evidence in favour of the OP that the flat is complete, whereas the report made by the Local Commissioner after that letter i.e. on 25.09.2017, itself established that the construction work of the flat is not completed. So, under these circumstances, we find that there is a much delay on the part of the OP for delivering the possession of the flat to the complainant. As per Clause 7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the LIG flat is to be delivered to the complainant within 2½ years, means upto June-July 2012 the possession is to be delivered to the complainant, but till September, 2017, as per report of the Local Commissioner, the LIG flat in question were not in a position to deliver its possession. So, from over all circumstances, it is established that there is an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
9. As an upshot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the entire consideration amount of the flat i.e. Rs.6,15,241/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 10.02.2015, till its realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.60,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further OP is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. 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 Jyotsna Karnail Singh
21.05.2019 Member President
