BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.487 of 2016
Date of Instt. 15.12.2016
Date of Decision: 13.03.2018
Rajesh Kumar Vij S/o Sh. Chaman Lal Vij resident of 555-A, Mathura Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Chairman.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Ashok Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Sachin Sharda, Adv Counsel for the OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the OP had framed 94.97 Acre Development Scheme at Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar under Punjab Improvement Act within the bound of Municipal Corporation Jalandhar. The said scheme along with layout plan was sanctioned by the State Government and the same was published and the brochures were issued for the general public. The complainant had applied for a plot measuring 200 square yards only on the basis of layout plan by which a certain lands have been shown reserved for a park. The complainant applied for a plot and the complainant has been allotted plot No.212-D measuring 200 square yards, vide letter No.834 dated 06.06.2012, which was issued by the OP in front of the area meant for the park. The complainant has got raised a loan of Rs.3,40,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Jalandhar and has deposited the said amount with the OP as earnest money within the stipulated period.
2. That when the above said scheme was framed certain land was reserved for park in front of the plots measuring 200 Square Yards as shown in the layout plan of development scheme of Surya Enclave Extension by the OP. The scheme became operational and as per the approved site plan, residential plots were carved out. The dispute in the present complaint is with regard to the area shown green in the layout plan, the same was marked to set up a park. The grievance of the complainant is that before deciding to change the layout plan, no objections were invited from the occupiers/allottees of the plots. Secondly, the area which was specifically reserved for setting up of a park in the original layout plan could not be utilized for any other purpose. As per scheme and layout plan, a piece of land opposite to the plot of the complainant was reserved for special purpose. Now three plots have been carved on the area meant for park even without getting any sanction and approval of the State Government as required under law. That by utilizing the area prominently reserved for the park for purpose other then that the very purpose of the lay out plan as sanctioned in the original scheme has been altered and the OP has violated the provisions of the Act. The OP has made material alteration in the layout plan. The complainant has agreed to buy the plot on the basis of layout plan and on finding an area meant for park in front of his allotted plot. The complainant is able to show grave prejudice to his interest as also an infraction of the mandatory provisions of the law. The complainant had approached the OP for the redressal of his grievance and requested it that he should be allotted alternative plot in exchange of the existing plot or to refund his hard earned money, but the OP refused to accede the genuine demand of the complainant. The complainant has also written a letter to the government of Punjab and the office of the Local Bodies Department Govt of Punjab has also issued instructions to the OP for the redressal of his grievance of the complainant, but the OP did not bother, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OP may kindly be directed to allot the complainant alternative plot in exchange of the existing allotted plot or to refund the money of the complainant, which was deposited by the complainant as earnest money with the OP along with interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and further alleged that as per Para No.6 of the allotment letter 1/4th of the amount is to be deposited within 30 days from the date of allotment of the OP and in case, the allottee fails to deposit the 1/4th of the allotment amount as mentioned in allotment letter, then the Jalandhar Improvement Trust will have the right to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount deposited. The complainant himself being a defaulter is not entitled for the relief. It is further averred that the complainant has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive. The complainant has filed this compliant with the aim to prevent the forfeiture of the amount and cancellation of the allotment, due to his failure to pay the 1/4th of the amounts as mentioned in the allotment letter and further alleged that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred and even the complainant has not locus-standi to file the present. On merits, the allotment of the plot to the complainant is admitted, but the remaining allegations are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 Brochure, Ex.C-2 Copy of Allotment Letter, Ex.C-3 Copy of Letter dated 02.07.2016, issued by Punjab National Bank, Ex.C-4 Copy of Application, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 Copies of Postal Receipts, Ex.C-8 Copy of Letter dated 03.11.2016, issued by Department of Local Body, Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 Photographs of the site and Ex.C-11 Original Site Plan and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for OP also tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith Site Plan Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. Before imparting with the main controversy, we like to discus the objections, raised by the OP that the complaint of the complainant is time barred, but in order to give strength to this allegation, the counsel for the OP could not able to satisfy this Forum, how the complaint is time barred rather the cause of action accrued to the complainant, when he sent a letter to the OP for making alternative arrangement of his plot i.e. the letter Ex.C-4, vide registered letter on 04.07.2016 and within two years, the complainant has right to file the complaint, whereas the instant complaint has been filed on 16.12.2016, which is well within limitation.
8. Coming to the main controversy of the party, the complainant alleged that he got a plot measuring 200 square yards and accordingly, he deposited an earnest money of Rs.3,40,000/-, at the time of allotment letter, he got his plot in front of the park, but the said park has been altered by the OP by carving three or four plots and as such, caused a prejudice to the complainant by carving out a plot in the park, whereas the complainant virtually purchased the plot being a reason, the same is in front of the park, for that purpose, the complainant referred the layout plan produced on the file by the OP, which is Ex.OP-1 and in that Site Plan, the OP has referred the Plot No.221-D and alleged that the same is not in front of the park, but the OP has wrongly and illegally referred the wrong number of the plot because the plot of the complainant is having number 212-D and which is apparently in front of the park, it is admitted fact that the OP has no right to later on curve out any plot in the land, which was left meant for park, but admittedly, the OP has change the some land of the park into plots, to this extent the case of the complainant is established.
9. Further, we considered the plea taken by the OP that the complainant himself failed to deposit the 1/4th amount of the total price, within 30 days from the date of allotment and further urged that the said condition is mandatory, which is very well mentioned in the brochure Ex.C-1 under the heading of “Allotment Conditions” as one “Arra” and similar condition is also mentioned in the Allotment Letter dated 06.06.2016 Ex.C-2 at Para No.6, admittedly, the complainant has deposited only earnest money of Rs.3,40,000/- means 10% of the total value of the plot and remaining 15%, which comes to 1/4th of the total amount had not been deposited by the complainant because the complainant has not alleged in the complaint nor he produced on the file any receipt to that extent, but prior to expiry of the 30 days, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP for change of his plot, for the reason mentioned in the complaint, the said letter is Ex.C-4, no doubt there is no date on the said letter, but the said letter was sent through Registered Post and Postal Receipts are available on the file Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7, which are dated 04.07.2016, this date is very crucial in this case because we have to account the days from the date of Allotment Letter i.e. 30 days, which comes on 06.07.2016 till that date, the complainant has to deposit the 1/4th amount of the total price of the plot, but prior to expiry of that date, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP and submitted his grievances in regard to change of plot or return of earnest money being a reason, the park facing to his plot has been carved out into some plots, but the OP did not bother or never considered the request of the complainant, which was sent by Registered Post, if considered and declined, then the said order must be placed on the file, but the OP has failed to bring on the file any such order rather unnecessarily alleging that the complainant failed to deposit the 1/4th amount within 30 days, which is not a true version because the complainant inspite of depositing the remaining amount sent his grievances and firstly, the grievances of the complainant is required to dispose and then further period of 30 days is to be started. So, under these circumstances, we find that there is unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and accordingly, OP is directed to either allot alternative plot in exchange of the existing allotted plot to the complainant and if not possible, then refund the earnest money, deposited by the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit, till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation for mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. 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.
11. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
13.03.2018 Member President
