Punjab

StateCommission

FA/437/2013

Harmeet Kaur Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jalandhar Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Balram Singh

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                                                                             2^nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 437 of 2013

 

                                                                                               Date of institution: 16.04.2013

Date of Decision: 05.03.2015

 

                                   Harmeet Kaur Sethi w/o Mandip Singh Sethi r/o 174, Model Town, Jalandhar.

 

…..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

                     Jalandhar Improvement Trust through its Chairman.

 

     ....Respondent/Opposite Party

 

First Appeal against the order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.

Before:-

 

Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

For the appellant           : None

For the respondent        : Sh. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate

 

Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

                                                          ORDER

 

                  The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 358 dated 07.08.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents/Ops (hereinafter referred as the ‘the OPs’) on the allegations that the Ops had floated a scheme known as “Surya Enclave Extension (94.97 Acre) Development Scheme”. The complainant had applied for the allotment of plot of 250sq.yards in the general category vide application No. 084269 by depositing earnest money of Rs. 4.25,000/- . In the draw held on 04.11.2011, the complainant was allotted plot No. 89-D. After allotment, the complainant visited the site of the scheme in the month of July 2012 for inspection and for verification about the development work at the site, allotted to her. She was shocked and was surprised to find out that the site of the scheme area was lying as barren land. There was no sign of development at the site. It was not possible to identify and locate the plot, which was allotted to her. As per the photographs taken on site, it would be apparent that no infrastructure was developed in the area. She sought some clarification from the Ops regarding the possession of the allotted plot in the scheme land and also for providing of the basic amenities like sewerage, water supply and other facilities. Later on she also found  that  the Ops were entangled in legal cases on account of pending litigation in the court on account of land acquisition proceeding pertaining to the scheme. The Ops had allured her as per their brochure and had acted malafidely as there was no land with them to allot to her and there was a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the complaint was filed with the request to issue directions to the Ops for cancellation of the allotted plot and issue direction that amount deposited by her be refunded along with applicable rate of interest.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed the written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious. She was allotted plot no. 89-D in the scheme known as “Surya Enclave Extension Development Scheme. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter No. 1 & 5, she was required to deposit 1/4^th price of the plot within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said letter. On her failure, to deposit, 1/4^th price of plot, her earnest money deposited by her was forfeited, therefore, her complaint was not maintainable. On merits, the same points were reiterated and that the complaint was without merit, it be dismissed.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective evidence. Complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavits Ex CWI/A along with copies of documents Ex-C/1 to Ex-C/4. The Ops had tendered into evidence affidavits Ex-OP1 and OP2 and closed their evidence.

5.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the Ops, evidence brought on record, District Forum observed that only earnest money was deposited and 1/4^th amount was not deposited within 30 days from the date of allotment. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, in case 1/4^th amount of the total price was not deposited then earnest money was liable to be forfeited as per Condition No. 6 and it was rightly forfeited. In view of this condition, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

6.                In the grounds of appeal, it has been submitted that the District Forum has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on the record, that the land in question was under litigation, thus, there was no purpose to deposit the amount as alleged in the allotment letter. In fact it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Op, who were not in possession of the land for which the scheme was notified. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and consequently, the appeal be accepted.

7.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the Op and on the date of hearing counsel of the complainant was not present. In our opinion when any scheme is launched, main features of the scheme are given and in case the complainant needed any inquiry then it can be raised before applying for a plot under the said scheme. A reference has been given to litigation in the Hon’ble High Court. No doubt some litigation must have been filed in the Hon’ble High Court but it must be seen whether the entire property under this scheme was the subject matter of the litigation filed before the Hon’ble High Court under which the dispossession of the original owners was stayed. No copy of the writ petition or court proceeding was filed on the record. When once the scheme was launched and allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant then the parties are to be governed under the said allotment letter. As per condition contained in the allotment letter, the complainant was required to deposit 25% of the total sale consideration within 30 days from the date of allotment, failing which the earnest money deposited will be forfeited. However, the complainant failed to deposit 25% of the sale consideration of the plot within 30 days from the date of allotment. She has taken a plea that there was no development at the site. The development would be possible only in case the plot owners, to whom the plots were allotted continues to deposit the payment as per the schedule. There is a condition in the allotment letter that in case the 25% amount of consideration as referred in the allotment letter is not deposited, then earnest money is liable to be forfeited as per terms & conditions of the allotment letter.

8.                From the perusal of the record we find that the complainant herself had failed to deposit 25% of the sale consideration, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, therefore, the earnest money was rightly forfeited by the Ops.  In view of the above observations, the appeal is here by dismissed as there is no merit in it. The order of the District Forum is well reasoned order and same is upheld.

9.                The argument was heard on 27.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.              This appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

                                                       (GURCHARAN SINGHSARAN)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                               (JASBIR SINGH GILL)

                                                                           MEMBER 

 

 

                                                     (HARCHARAN SINGHGURAM)

 March 5, 2015                                                                                                                                                                MEMBER                

Surinder