Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Pritam Singh father of the complainant was allotted a plot No.10, measuring 500 square yards in Transport Nagar Scheme, Ludhiana @ Rs.100/- per square yard vide allotment letter dated 26.12.1973 and accordingly, the costs of the plot of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid in installments. Thereafter, father of the complainant applied to the Opposite Parties for the transfer of the said plot in favour of the complainant and Opposite Parties vide its Memo No. OPPOSITE PARTIES/SB/12398 dated 14.12.2000 transferred the same in favour of the complainant after getting this transfer approved in the Trust meeting held on 29.11.1976. The complainant has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- of this plot in installments and not even a single paisa remained to be paid to the Opposite Parties. After clearing all the installments, the complainant applied with the Opposite Parties for the execution of the sale deed of the plot in question in his favour, but the Opposite Parties did not execute the sale deed of this plot on one or the other excuse. When the Opposite Parties failed to execute the sale deed of the plot in question, then the complainant filed a complaint before this District Consumer Forum (now Commission) and in the reply of the said complaint, the Opposite Parties have admitted to have receive the payment against this allotment and finally, this District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana has accepted the complaint of the complainant directing the Opposite Parties to execute the sale deed of the plot in question and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation besides Rs.2000/- as legal expenses. When the Opposite Parties failed to execute the sale deed as per the order of this District Consumer Commission, then the complainant filed an execution for the compliance of the order. During the pendancy of the execution, the Opposite Parties told that an amount of Rs.74,350/- was outstanding , but in his anxiety to get sale deed executed, the complainant immediately deposited this amount of Rs.74,350/- by way of two demand draft dated 30.05.2009, but the Opposite Parties after keeping these drafts pending in its office file for more than 7 years, returned these two drafts to the complainant vide letter dated 02.12.2016. Again during the pendancy of the execution application, the Opposite Parties suddenly on 28.07.2009 raised an objection that an amount of Rs.80,000/- as sale consideration of this plot was outstanding and assured this District Consumer Commission that if this amount is deposited then the sale deed of this plot will be executed, and at this, the complainant raised objection saying that the Opposite Parties have already returned him the drafts amounting to Rs.74,350/- by keeping with them for 7 years. At this, the Opposite Parties told that earlier these drafts were misplaced and was advised to deposit this amount of Rs.80,000/- so that the sale deed of his plot could be executed in compliance of court orders. Further in compliance of the order of this District Consumer Commission, the complainant deposited Rs.80,000/- with the Opposite Parties by way of Pay Order dated 11.08.2019. But instead of executing the sale deed of the plot in question, the complainant obtained the stay order from Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab at Chandigarh by filing an appeal and on 09.09.2013 the appeal of the Opposite Party stands dismissed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab at Chandigarh. The complainant again got revived the execution application from this District Consumer Commission. Lateron, vide order dated 07.11.2016 this District Consumer Commission directed the Opposite Party to execute the sale deed of the plot, but at that time, the Opposite Party further asked the complainant to deposit Rs.90,000/- and under the compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.90,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed, however, the Opposite Party has already got deposited the entire amount before the execution of the sale deed. But at that time, the Opposite Party was taking benefit of the helplessness of the complainant by refusing to execute the sale deed of his plot if these amounts although illegal were not paid to the Opposite Party and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.90,000/- which was recovered by them on 17.07.2015 unauthorized as well as to return the two demand draft of Rs.74,550/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.50,000/- as legal expenses or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that it is wrong that as per terms and conditions of the allotment, the complainant paid entire sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- of this plot in installments and not even a single paisa remained to be paid by him to the Opposite Parties as alleged by the complainant in this para of the complaint which is wrong. The allotee failed to deposit installments in time with the Opposite Parties as such interest amount accrued there on due to late deposit of amount of installments and interest accrued was got deposited by the Opposite Parties as per allotment letter and rules. In fact, the allotee and the complainant failed to pay the entire sale consideration of the plot in question within time as per terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter as such, the allotee was bound to deposit amount of interest etc. on the delayed payments made by him. It is wrong that during the pendency of the execution, the Trust told the complainant that an amount of Rs.74,350/- was outstanding of this plot and the complainant was asked to deposit this amount. It is wrong that in anxiety to get sale deed executed, the complainant immediately deposited amount of Rs.74,350/- with the Opposite Parties as alleged by the complainant in this para of the complaint which is denied. It is submitted that in order to deposit the remaining due sale price etc. of Rs.74,350/-, the complainant submitted draft no. 048938 dated 03.05.2009 of Rs.40,000/- and draft no. 048937 dated 03.05.2009 of Rs.34,350/- with the Opposite Parties but due to pendency of said execution, the Opposite Parties did not got encashed both the said drafts of Rs.74,350/- which were returned by the Opposite Parties to the complainant vide letter no. 7836 dated 02.12.2016. However the complainant was bound to deposit due amount along with interest with the Opposite Parties. It is wrong that the complainant immediately approached the Trust to know about the details of amount of Rs.80,000/-. It is wrong that he was told by the Trust that since he did not deposit the amount of Rs.74,350/- so this amount has been increased to Rs.80,000/- for the months of 06.2009 to 07.2009. It is wrong that the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount to the Opposite Parties. It is wrong that he prayed the Trust to re-verify its account. It is wrong that there was any question of asking him to deposit the amount of Rs.80,000/- as alleged by the complainant in this para of the complaint. As per facts stated above, the said two drafts of Rs.74350/- had not got encashed due to the pendency of court proceedings regarding the matter in dispute and the same were returned to the complainant vide letter no.7836 dated. Actually, the complainant had not deposited said amount of Rs.80,000/- with the Opposite Parties in compliance with the order dated 10.08.2009 passed by this District Consumer Commission as alleged in this para of the complaint. If said amount through alleged pay order of Rs.80,000/- would have been deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Parties on 11.08.2009 then he must have received receipt from the Opposite Parties for deposit of said amount of Rs.80,000/- and non production of said alleged receipt clearly shows that the said due amount of Rs.80,000/- was not deposited by the complainant with Opposite Parties on 11.08.2009 as alleged in this para of the complaint. The complainant was liable to pay the said due amount of Rs.80,000/- to the Opposite Parties along with future interest accrued on that due amount. As per record of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had not deposited any alleged amount of Rs. 80,000/- with the Opposite Parties on 11.08.2009 but the complainant deposited due amount of Rs.90,000/- with the Opposite Parties on 17.07.2015 vide receipt no. 804815 dated 17.07.2015 which was payable by him to the Opposite Parties upto that date. It is wrong that at the time of preparation of sale deed of this plot, the Trust had asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 90,000/- as balance sale consideration. It is wrong that the complainant asked for the details of this amount and he was told that 74,250/- were due in 05.2009 which arose to Rs. 80,000/- in 08/2009 which further arose to 84,222/- in 10.2014 and has gone to Rs. 90,000/- in 12/2016 as alleged by the complainant. In fact, the complainant failed to deposit the due amount with the Opposite Parties and he deposited due amount of Rs. 90,000/- with the Opposite Parties vide receipt 804815 dated 17.07.2015 which was due upto that date and were liable to be paid by him to the Opposite Parties on account of due sale price along with interest etc. of the plot in question and he was bound to deposit the same. It is wrong that the complainant was told that Rs.80,000/- has been adjusted as balance sale consideration of the plot and the amount of Rs. 74,350/- and amount of Rs. 90,000/- will be refunded to him. In fact, no amount is liable to be paid or refunded by the Opposite Parties to the complainant as alleged in this para of the complaint as the amount of Rs. 90,000/- was received by the Opposite Parties on account of due sale price with interest and the said alleged amount of Rs. 74,350/- and Rs. 80,000/- was never received by the Opposite Parties from the complainant as per facts stated above. The Opposite Parties was never at fault and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, prays for dismissal of the complainant.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RW alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that under the compelling circumstances, the Opposite Party got deposited the excess amount of Rs.90,000/- at the time of executing the sale deed of the plot in question and prays for refund of this amount alongwith interest and compensation. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have denied this fact and contended that they never charged any excess and illegal amount from the complainant. Perusal of the record shows that in fact, in order to deposit the remaining due sale price etc. of Rs.74,350/-, the complainant submitted draft no. 048938 dated 03.05.2009 of Rs.40,000/- and draft no. 048937 dated 03.05.2009 of Rs.34,350/- with the Opposite Parties but due to pendency of said execution, the Opposite Parties did not got encashed both the said drafts of Rs.74,350/- which were returned by the Opposite Parties to the complainant vide letter no. 7836 dated 02.12.2016. But on the other hand, the complainant has failed to prove that he ever deposited the amount of Rs.90,000/- with the Opposite Parties twice. Bare perusal of the record shows that the complainant has deposited the due amount of Rs.90,000/- with the Opposite Parties vide receipt 804815 dated 17.07.2015 which was due upto that date and for which, the complainant was legally liable to pay the said amount to the Opposite Parties on account of due sale price along with interest etc. of the plot in question. As such, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove to have ever deposited the excess amount of Rs.90,000/- second time with the Opposite Parties and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint has no merit and the same stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
