Punjab

Jalandhar

CC/226/2019

Satish Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jalandhar Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Arora

20 Jun 2023

ORDER

Distt Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No - 217
JALANDHAR
(PUNJAB)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/226/2019
( Date of Filing : 01 Jul 2019 )
 
1. Satish Chawla
Satish Chawla son of Sh. Ram Lal Chawla, R/o 42, Deol Nagar, Near Coca-Cola Godown, Jalandhar.
Jalandhar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Chairman/Administrator.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Harveen Bhardwaj PRESIDENT
  Jyotsna MEMBER
  Jaswant Singh Dhillon MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Sh. R. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
......for the Complainant
 
Sh. Sachin Sharda, Adv. Counsel for OP.
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 20 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.226 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 01.07.2019

      Date of Decision: 20.06.2023

 

Satish Chawla (now deceased) through his LRs Smt. Nirmal Chawla, aged about 62 years, wife of Sh. Satish Chawla, House No.42, Deol Nagar, Nakodar Road, Near Coca-Cola Godown, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Chairman/Administrator.

….….. Opposite Party

 

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. R. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Sachin Sharda, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that a LIG flat No.61-A First Floor of the JIT under its 51.5 acre scheme known as Bibi Bhani Complex, Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Jalandhar, which was allotted to the complainant for a total sum of Rs.5,87,942/, vide allotment letter No.JIT/7040 dated 28.01.2010 as per terms and conditions enumerated in the said allotment letter. The very first payment towards the earnest money of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the complainant before the allotment of plot, which was also acknowledged by the opposite party in the above said allotment letter. As per the clause no.15 of the allotment letter, the allottee was required to deposit subsequent installments from time to time, as such, the installments were paid by the allottee i.e. the complainant, towards the sale price of the aforesaid flat. Thereafter, payment of all the installments towards the sale price of the flat allotted by the OP, the complainant approached the concerned officials of the OP for completion of the paper formalities as described in the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the OP was required to handover possession of the flat within scheduled time frame, but the possession of the flat was not delivered within scheduled time period inspite of repeated requests and demands in this regard. Upto the month of January, 2015 all the payments, fees, costs of documentation and interest on the delayed payments towards the sale price of the flat, were made as per the demands raised by the officials of the OP, but the possession of the flat was not given to the complainant even after repeated and continuous requests since then. During the year 2017, the OP had commenced to write offer letters for delivery of possession of the flats to the flat owners. Accordingly, some of the allottees were called by the officials of the OP in its office situated at Skylark Chowk, Jalandhar and got signed the memo of delivery of possession of the flat, meaning thereby, only symbolic possession was given in papers and thereafter couples of days, the complainant was called at the spot for delivery of physical possession of the flat and on visiting at the spot, the allottees found that the works of wooden door, window windowpane, paint and white wash were being carried out and there was no explanation from the concerned officials of the OP for the sub-standard material used in construction and from the various other defects, it was clear that construction material and fittings were not according to the ISI/PWD standards. Furthermore, the said flats are not fit for human habitation as there was no supply of water in the flats of the OPs and sewerage pipelines were not connected. There was no explanation from concerned officials of the OP. The complainant could not shift there as the said flat was not fit for living. The complainant came across many other allottees for the flats in the said complex who were also complaining about the similar problems. The problems of all most all the allottees were common as the essential infrastructural works as well as basic amenities such as water supply and sewerage connection were not provided when the possession of the flats was commenced to be given from May, 2017. Since these grievances of all the allottees are common, as such, all most all the allottees of this complex of the OP jointly and severally met the concerned officials of the OP many a times to get these basic amenities, but these have not been provided so far. In order to agitate the matter in issue before the concerned higher authorities, the allottees also got highlighted their grievances in the electronic media and in the print media for redressal of their grievances. In this way, the complainant is suffering great financial loss as her hard earned money lying blocked with the OP and the complainant is not getting interest on the entire payment made to the OP whereas the OP used to charge interest @ of more than 18% per annum in case of any delayed payment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to provide all the promised and proposed amenities in the complex as well as in the said flat in question, which were proposed to be provided as per the Allotment Letter and Brochure of the present scheme especially to ensure the proper and adequate supply of the water and also to ensure proper working of sewerage system and further OP be directed to award penal interest @ 18% on the entire amount deposited for the flat for the period from January, 2015, till the date all the basic amenities of water supply and sewerage system are provided in the said flat as the complainant could not make use of the said flat even for a single day in view of the fact that the same is not fit for human habitation due to lack of facilities of water supply and sewerage connection and to complete the legal formalities of documentation in favour of complainant, if any, like conveyance deed, agreement of sale etc. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and to return the entire deposited amount of Rs.5,87,942/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the dates of making deposits till realization of this amount.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this Court. The complainant has himself taken the possession of the flat after getting duly satisfied with regard to woodwork, internal, water supply, sewerage, electric connection and construction work with regard to the flat in question on 14.12.2017 and have himself signed over the slip of the possession. It is further averred that the claim of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation as such complaint deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it is admitted that the flat in question has been allotted to the complainant and complainant has also deposited the entire 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.

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 very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant was allotted LIG Flat No.61-A, First Floor by the OP as per the allotment letter Ex.C1. As per the conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.5,87,942/- in installments and earnest money of Rs.60,000/- was deposited before the allotment. The complainant has proved on record the copies of the receipts of payment of installments Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12. The grievance of the complainant is that despite taking the installments and the entire amount, the possession of flat was not delivered within scheduled time period. The OP has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. As per the Clause-7 of the allotment letter Ex.C-1, the amenities and facilities were to be completed within 2½ years of the allotment and possession will be delivered thereafter, but the facilities and amenities have not been given by the OP. As per the contention of the complainant, the symbolic possession was given by the OP to the complainant, but no physical possession on the spot was given to the complainant. The construction material and fittings in the flat were not as per PWD standard and sub-standard material was used. This clearly shows the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.                As discussed above the facts of allotment of LIG Flat No.61-A and payment of installments has been admitted and proved by the parties. As per Clause No.7 of the allotment letter Ex.C-1, the OP was supposed to construct the flats and provide the development facilities and all other amenities within 2 ½ years of the allotment and after that the possession was to be delivered. The news publications have been proved on record by the complainant, which are from different newspapers, which have been proved as Ex.C14 to Ex.C22. Perusal of these news publications show that the project was incomplete when the possession was delivered. People of the locality protested for lack of amenities. No development was done.

8.                The counsel for the OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation. The complainant has taken the possession of the flat in question on 14.12.2017 and he has signed the possession slip/receipt stating therein that he is satisfied with the wood work, internal water supply, sewerage, electrification and construction work etc., but this contention is not tenable. The OP has not produced on record any document from where it can be ascertained that the work of water supply and sewerage system etc. has been completed. 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.

9.                In the present case also only symbolic possession has been given without amenities and without obtaining completion/occupation certificate. All the news publication show that the facilities and development in the Bibi Bhani Complex is incomplete, meaning thereby there is no development at all. The complainant wrote letter to OP Ex.C-23 stating that there are water supply and sewerage issues in the flats. Sewerage is blocked and water pipes are leaking. In other case titled as ‘Sushil Kumar Vs. JIT’ Local Commissioner was appointed, who gave his report that the water has not yet been released, there is blockage of sewerage and leak in pipe line. The order dated 12.03.2019 has been proved as Ex.C-24. So, from all the angles, it is clear that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP and as such, we are of the opinion that after waiting for a long time, the complainant became frustrated and demanded the return of the money along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

10.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. From the documents produced on record by both the parties, it is evident that partial possession was handed over to the complainant without the development work and amenities as per the conditions laid down in allotment letter. Therefore, the OP is directed to complete the development work and provide all the amenities and facilities in the flat of the complainant as per the allotment letter and brochure of the present scheme alongwith approach road within three months. They are further directed to complete the procedure of completion of all the legal documents, failing which OP is directed to return the entire deposited amount of Rs.5,87,942/- alongwith 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. 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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

20.06.2023         Member                          Member           President

 

 
 
[ Harveen Bhardwaj]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Jyotsna]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Jaswant Singh Dhillon]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.