BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.590 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 11.12.2019

                Date of Decision: 08.08.2024

Punjab Medical Institute and Hospital of Electropathy (Regd.), 3 Green Model Town, Jalandhar through its president Jasbir Singh Chawla.

..........Complainant

Versus

Jalandhar Development Authority, Jalandhar, through The Executive Officer (R)

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. A. S. Saini, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is owner of residential plot measuring 1239 sq. yards situated in Village Bhagwanpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The complainant approached the department of the OP and requested the concerned official for issuance of NOC but the matter was lingered on one pretext or the other and later on the complainant told that his plot, referred to above falls within unauthorized colonies and the complainant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.94,450/- for regularization of his plot and thereafter NOC would be issued to the complainant. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.94,450/- by way of Bank Draft No.845278 dated 27.11.2018 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Innocent Heart School Branch, Jalandhar issued in the name of Chief Administration PUDA R/C on 29.11.2018 and the same was acknowledged vide receipt dated 29.11.2018. Thereafter, the complainant received a letter bearing letter No.EO (R)/JDA-JAL-2019-1581 dated 25.02.2019 as per which the plot of the complainant was/is not a part of any unauthorized colony thus the application for NOC of the residential plot of the complainant cannot be considered as the same was/is not covered under the policy. The complainant after the receipt of letter dated 25.02.2019 visited the JDA, Jalandhar office and requested the official concern to refund the fees of Rs.94,450/- so received in lieu of regularization of plot of the complainant, but no satisfactory reply was accorded to the complainant. The complainant on 20.03.2019 by way of letter again requested the official concern of JDA, Jalandhar to reimburse the amount of Rs.94,450/- of the complainant to complainant and said letter was duly acknowledged vide endorsement No.897 dated 20.03.2019. Thereafter, the complainant many times visited the office of the OP and requested the official concern to do the needful and to reimburse the amount of the complainant, but all in vain. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 04.09.2019 upon the OP, but to no avail 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 pay claim amount of Rs.94,450/- to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.15,000/- 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 complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and thus, this Court has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is stopped from filing the present complaint by his act, conduct and admissions. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OP for issuance of NOC. It is also admitted that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.94,450/- for regularization of his plot, 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.                Rejoinder not filed.

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 as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the complainant approached the OP for issuance of NOC. It is also admitted that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.94,450/- for regularization of his plot. The complainant has proved the copy of draft and acknowledgement Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. As per the letter Ex.A5, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP on 20.03.2019 that the amount deposited be refunded as the plot for which NOC was applied was not found covered under the policy. In the written statement in para No.6, it has been alleged by the OP that the amount deposited cannot be refunded back as per the instructions of the Govt. The plot in question could not be regularized as per the regularization policy of October, 2018. It has further been mentioned in the written statement that as per the policy only the plots following in the unauthorized colonies developed before March, 2018 can be regularized.

7.                From the written statement and the documents produced on record by the complainant, it is proved that the amount of Rs.94,450/- was received by the OP for the purpose of the regularization of the plot before issuing the NOC. It is also proved that the plot of the complainant did not fall in any unauthorized colony. It is proved that the amount of Rs.94,450/- is lying with the OP and is being used by the OP since 27.11.2018. The OP has relied upon the letter of the Govt. dated 10.05.2019. Perusal of this letter shows that case of withdrawal of refund can be given only if there was no requirement for a plot holder to move for regularization. In the present case also since the plot of the complainant did not fall under the unauthorized colony, therefore, at that time, there was no need and requirement of the complainant to move for regularization nor it has been mentioned anywhere in the letter issued by the OP as to whether the complainant should apply for regularization or not nor the NOC has been issued by the OP. When nothing has been informed to the complainant about the need of regularization the OP cannot retain the money of the complainant. The money was deposited for the services, but no services have been provided and the complainant moved application for refund and the same was refused. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OP and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to pay Rs.94,450/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount i.e. 27.11.2018, till its realization. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. 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     

08.08.2024         Member                          Member                President