BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.323 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 01.10.2020

      Date of Decision: 20.12.2023

Vikas Kakkar, aged about 46 years son of Shri Om Parkash Kakkar, resident of Flat No.4, Ground Floor, Chadha Complex, Venus Apartment, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar (since deceased) through his legal heirs:-

(1)     Veena Kakkar, aged about 72 years wife of Shri Om Parkash;

(2)     Monika Kakkar, aged 43 years widow of late Shri Vikas Kakkar,

(3)     Manya Kakkar, aged 19 years daughter of late Shri Vikas         Kakkar,

(4)     Mahir Kakkar, aged 17 years minor son of late Shri Vikas        Kakkar,

          through his mother and natural guardian, Smt. Monika Kakkar,         all residents of Flat No.4, Ground Floor, Chadha Complex,      Venus Apartments, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Officer-in-Charge.

….….. 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. Brijesh Bakshi, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that vide letter No.949 dated 07.06.2016, a plot bearing No.112-C i.e. corner plot measuring 153 sq. yards in Development Scheme of 94.97 Acres known as Surya Enclave Extension was allotted to the complainant at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per sq. yard. As per the demand, 10% of the total amount was to be deposited by the complainant and thus, a sum of Rs.2,60,100/- was deposited by the complainant with the OP and the balance amount was to be paid in due time. Thereafter, neither the plot has been developed at the spot nor any possession thereof has been delivered to the complainant. Even till today, the plot has not been developed and no possession of the plot has been delivered to the complainant. In fact, at the spot, there is agricultural land and neither any roads have been developed nor any development has been made at the spot. From time to time, notices were received by the complainant from the OP and it was categorically told by the complainant that as and when the plot is developed and the possession is delivered, the payment would be made as the complainant has applied for loan on the said plot from Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Jalandhar but as the plot has neither been developed at the spot nor any other development has been made with regard to the colony, so the loan amount could not be released. Thereafter, vide letter No.4250 dated 18.03.2019 it has been informed by the OP, Jalandhar improvement Trust, Jalandhar that the plot allotted to the complainant vide letter No.949 dated 07.06.2016 has been cancelled and the amount of earnest money deposited by the complainant has been forfeited. In fact, even today, the plot has neither been developed nor any development has been made at the spot and it appears that the OP, who is going through financial problems, is trying to usurp the hard earned money of the complainant. The Trust is playing fraud with the complainant and there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Improvement Trust because neither the plot has been developed nor any roads have been developed nor sewerage has been put rather the balance amount is being sought to be deposited without even development of the plot at the spot. A legal notice dated 14.04.2019 was served upon the OP, but all in vain 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 demarcate the plot after development of the scheme as per the advertisement of the scheme and the allotment letter OR in the alternative, in case the scheme cannot be developed then the opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount which has been paid by the complainant to the OP i.e. a sum of Rs.02,60,100/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization of the amount as the opposite party has enjoyed the fruit of investment. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- 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 under the law against the OP. It is further averred that the present complaint is time barred for the refund of amount of Rs.2,60,100/- as the said amount was deposited by the complainant alongwith application on 10.05.2016 and thereafter the present complaint is not maintainable on account of being time barred. It is further averred that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law. It is further averred that the complainant is barred by his own act, conduct and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed. It is further averred that the complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands and as such, is not entitled to any relief from this Commission. The complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP. On merits, the factum with regard to allotment of the plot to complainant and payment to the same is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed 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 very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the Plot No.112-C, was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 07.06.2016, which has been proved as Ex.C1 and Rs.2,60,100/- was deposited by the complainant, which is evident from Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. The grievance of the complainant is that despite taking the payment, neither the plot was developed at the spot nor any possession thereof has been delivered to the complainant and at the spot there is agricultural land and neither any roads have been developed and this fact has been proved from the photographs Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. Vide letter No.4250 dated 18.03.2019, it has been informed by the OP that the plot allotted to the complainant has been cancelled and the amount of earnest money deposited by the complainant has been forfeited. Since, there was no development at all nor there were any chances of development and the OP has wrongly cancelled the allotment without issuing any notice to the complainant or without giving him the opportunity of being heard. He did not enter into the agreement because of the conditions and situation prevailing at the spot.

7.                The contention of the OP is that the present complaint is time barred. The allotment was made on 07.06.2016 and the possession could be taken after entering into sale agreement within 30 days from allotment. But the complainant failed to do so. The complainant himself has failed to take possession, but this contention is not tenable as the photographs have been proved on record by the complainant, which has been proved as Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. These photographs show that the facilities and development in the Surya Enclave Extension is incomplete, meaning thereby there is no development at all. The OP has not produced on record any photograph or document from where it can be ascertained that the portable roads, water/sewerage and street lights etc. have been completed. The Plot was allotted on 07.06.2016. As per the conditions of the allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered within 2½ year and the complainant was to pay the installments from time to time. The photographs clearly show that the conditions were not complied with by the OP as the plots were not ready within prescribed period. As per submission of counsel for the complainant, the Hon’ble High Court had granted stay as the OP was not owner of the property. The decision came in favour of OPs on 22.12.2015 and the development work was started at War Footing which was not completed till filing of the complaint. In such circumstances, it cannot be expected from a person to part with his hard earned money to invest in a dead project, which was apparent as there was a stay order of the Hon’ble High Court and there were no signs of any development on the spot nor the amenities and facilities were provided to the other allotteess, who had parted with the money and paid the same to the OP, though the complainant has not deposited the amount of installments with the OP, but the fault is on the part of the OP. It was the duty of the OP to satisfy the complainant that they will handover the possession complete in all respect as per the conditions of the allotment letter within prescribed period, but nothing was done. The OP has not produced on record any photographs or document from where it can be ascertained that portable roads, water, sewerages and streets lights have been completed and the project is complete. As per Ex.C-4, Rs.2,60,100/- were paid by the complainant and as per Ex.C-7/OP-2, the allotment was cancelled. No document has been filed on record by the OP to show that the complainant was ever issued notice informing him to deposit the amount failing which his plot shall be cancelled. No document is there to show that the complainant was given any hearing before sending the proposal to the Govt. for cancellation of the plot, therefore, the act of the OP is arbitrary and against the principles of the natural justice when the OP itself is at fault for not completing the project.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to refund the amount of the Plot i.e. Rs.2,60,100/-, which was paid/deposited by the complainant to the OP with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of making deposits till its realization. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant 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.

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     

20.12.2023         Member                          Member           President