Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/527

Baljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Gill

07 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No: 527 dated 17.11.2021.                              Date of decision: 07.08.2024.

 

Baljinder Singh son of Shri Amar Singh, Resident of Village Rohno Khurd, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

The Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman.

…..Opposite party 

                   Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Ms. Chetna, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the OP vide allotment letter/memo No.4892 dated 05.09.2011, allotted a plot No.1025-GG, measuring 125 sq. yards in the name of Sh. Sushil Kumar Malik S/o. Sh. Amolak Ram in their 475 acre development scheme known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Said Sushil Kumar deposited entire sale price of the plot to the OP and an agreement of sale was also executed. The complainant stated that said Sushil Kumar sold the plot to him. The complainant deposited transfer fee with the OP and the OP transferred the said plot in his name vide memo No.LIT/SB/2205 dated 23.05.2013 and also executed sale deed of the plot in favour of the complainant vide vasika No.2262 dated 05.06.2015.

                   The complainant further stated that on the demand of the OP, he deposited Rs.28,125/- under protest vide receipt No.102653 dated 21.05.2015 as non-construction fine. Even the complainant under protest deposited Rs.9375/- twice with the OP vide receipt No.109519 dated 13.10.2016 as well as receipt No.112121 dated 23.05.2017 as non-construction fine. Moreover, when the complainant applied for sanction of site plan with the OP, it again demanded non-construction charges upon which the complainant under protest deposited Rs.4676/- vide receipt No.123478 dated 18.12.2019 and Rs.1,24,200/- vide receipt No.123477 dated 18.12.2019.  The complainant further stated that he after raising construction as per sanctioned plan, he requested the OP to provide water and sewerage connection but the OP failed to do so despite repeated visits of the complainant. Even there was no infrastructure and basic alike water and sewerage supply attached to the pot in question. According to the complainant he spent huge amount on construction of the plot and even paid non-construction fine but he is unable to use his property due to lack of basic infrastructure and basic amenities. As such, this act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Even the demand and receipt of non-construction charges is bad in law, illegal and unwarranted in view of notification dated 13.12.2005. The complainant vide letter dated 28.01.2021 asked the OP to refund the non-construction charges with interest and to provide the facilities. The said letter was received by the OP vide No.6074 dated 01.02.2021 but with no effect. The complainant further stated that due to lack of water and sewerage supply facility, he is unable to reside in the house constructed on the plot in question and he has been paying electricity charges  without residence and now is living in a rental portion having rent of Rs.5000/- per month. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.08.2021 upon the OP but to no avail. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OP to quash the demand of non-construction charges and to refund the total non-construction fee of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest besides providing infrastructure and basic amenities like water and sewerage supply to the plot in question. The complainant also prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of its maintainability; the complainant has not come with clean hands; suppression of material facts; the complainant being estopped from filing the present complaint; the complainant is not a Consumer; lack of cause of action etc.                        On merits, the OP reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, the OP admitted the allotment of plot No.1025-GG, measuring 125 sq. yards situated in 475 Acre Scheme  in name of Sushil Kumar S/o. Sh. Amolak Ram vide allotment letter No.4892 dated 05.09.2011 and the said plot was transferred in the name of complainant after receiving full sale consideration and sale deed was also executed in the name of the complainant. The OP further stated that the plot is lying vacant and no construction was done by the complainants and as per Govt. Policy non-construction charges were taken which the complainant deposited for the year 2015-2016. Further due to some technical issues, the water and sewerage connection was not connected to the plot/locality. However, a tender bearing No.4530 dated 19.08.2021 was given to the contractor for providing sewerage and water supply to the locality and the work will be completed as early as possible and after completion of the work, the water and sewerage connection will be provided to the complainant as well as other residents of the locality immediately. The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of memo No.4892 dated 05.09.2011, Ex. C2 is the copy of Agreement for Sale, Ex. C3 is the copy of conditional sale deed, Ex. C4 is the copy of letter dated 12.02.2019 of the complainant, Ex. C5 is the copy of letter dated 28.01.2021 of the complainant, Ex. C6 to Ex. C10 are the receipts of deposit of non-construction charges, Ex. C11 is the copy of notification dated 13.12.2005, Ex. C12 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C13 is the copy of legal notice dated 24.08.2021, Ex. C14 is the copy of citation, Ex. C15 is the copy of memo No.2205 dated 23.05.2013 regarding transfer of plot and closed the evidence.

4.                The OP failed to adduce any evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities despite grant of last and final chance as well as imposition of costs of Rs.500/-. As such, the evidence of the OP closed by order vide order dated 01.02.2024.

                   However, at the time of filing written statement on 23.06.2022 also submitted affidavit  Ex. RA of  Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Executive Officer of the OP.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant. 

6.                Admittedly, a plot No.1025-GG measuring 125 sq. yards in 475 acre development scheme known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana was got transferred in the name of the complainant vide memo No.LIT/SB/2205 dated 23.05.2013 Ex. C15 and a conditional sale deed Ex. C3 was executed in favour of the complainant. Earlier the said plot was allotted to one Sushi Kumar vide agreement for sale Ex. C2. The OP asked the complainant to deposit non-construction charges with respect of plot in question, which the complainant deposited vide receipts Ex. C6 to Ex. C10 i.e. Rs.28,125/- on 21.05.2015 vide receipt Ex. C6, Rs.9375/- on 13.10.2016 vide receipt Ex. C7, Rs.9375/- on 23.05.2017 vide receipt Ex. C8, Rs.1,42,200/- on 18.12.2019 vide receipt Ex. C9 and Rs.4684/- on 18.12.2019 vide receipt Ex. C10. In all, the complainant deposited of Rs.1,75,749/- with the OP under the head Non-Construction Fine. The complainant deposited all such amount under protest and even wrote a letter Ex. C4 dated 12.02.2019 to the OP that he is depositing amount of Rs.1,24,200/- under protest. The complainant claimed to have constructed a house on the plot in question after got sanctioning the site plan from the OP. However, there is no water and sewerage supply in the locality.

7.                Now the point of consideration arises whether the OP is entitled to demand non-construction charges from the complainant even without providing any basic amenities such like water and sewerage supply?

8.                In this regard, the complainant has placed on record notification dated 13.12.2005 Ex. C11 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government (Local Government II Branch). The relevant para No.5 of the said notification is reproduced as under:-

“5. In the said rules, in form ‘D’ for condition No.(7), the following conditions shall be substituted, namely:-

(7)     You shall have to complete the building on the pot allotted to you within a period of three years from the date of taking possession of the pot or within a period of two years from the date of providing the basic civil amenities of water supply and approach path in the area where the plot is situated, after taking prior approval of the Trust.”

 

The complainant also wrote a letter dated 28.01.2021 Ex. C5 to the OP to refund the non-construction charges deposited by him as there was no water and sewerage connection provided by the OP at the site. The OP in para No.8 of on merits of their written statement admitted the fact of lacking the facility like water and sewerage supply and stated to have issued a tender bearing No.4530 dated 19.08.2021 allotting tender to a contractor allotting water and sewerage supply work and undertook to provide water and sewerage supply to the complainant and other residents of the locality after completion of said work. So these admissions clearly demonstrate that the basic amenities and the facilities along with necessary approvals of competent authorities which were required to be completed long ago are still in limbo. Even the OP has failed to produce any field report regarding the completion of construction work on the spot nor the OP has adduced any evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, the OP is guilty of rendering deficiency services and adoption of unfair trade practice. Moreover, the OP was not entitled to recover any non-construction charges from the complainant in the absence of basic amenities like water and sewerage supply which is the necessary facilities to reside in a house. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OP is directed to refund the amount Rs.1,75,749/- (the amount deposited by the complainant with the OP vide receipts Ex. C6 to Ex. C10)  along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complainant is further awarded composite costs of Rs.20,000/-.

9.                As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP directed to refund the amount Rs.1,75,749/- (the amount deposited by the complainant with the OP vide receipts Ex. C6 to Ex. C10)  along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OP shall further pay a composite costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                                (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                                President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.08.2024.

Gobind Ram.