Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/154

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

06 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 154 dated 19.03.2019.       

                                                Date of decision: 06.01.2023. 

 

Harjinder Singh S/o. Darshan Singh, R/o. H. No.356-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory/Manager/Representative etc. H.O. Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.                                                                                  …..Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Complainant Sh. Harjinder Singh in person.

For OP                           :         Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 12.09.2016, the complainant got plot No.356-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana registered and transferred in his own name from the opposite party vide Annexure-1 with planning to construct a house. The complainant got approved for building plan on 29.12.2016 vide Annexure-3 and 7) whereby time of two years was fixed for completion of construction. The complainant started constructing house and also obtained water and sewerage connection on 13.07.2017 vide Annexure-5. At that time, the complainant was living in a house No.357-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana owned by his father. On 23.07.2018, an electricity connection was also obtained and thereafter, the complainant started living in the newly constructed house No.356-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. According to the complainant, he completed the construction within stipulated period and despite this, the opposite party issued a notice asking him to pay non-construction charges amounting to Rs.1,57,000/- for the year 2017 and 2018. The complainant made two representations firstly on 27.12.2018 and secondly on 04.01.2019 requesting the opposite party to quash the said illegal demand but in response to these letters, on 27.12.2018 and 29.01.2019, the complainant was directed to pay non-construction charges. Due to this unjust and unreasonable demand, the complainant claimed to have suffered mental torture and he prayed that the opposite party be restrained from issuing illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.1,57,000/-  on account of non-construction charges imposed for the year 2017 and 2018.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission as he has not disclosed the compete contents of letter bearing memo No.LIT/DB/157 dated 29.12.2016. The relevant portion translated from Punjabi to English is that

‘This map is valid for starting construction within one year and to complete construction time limit is two years, subject to the condition that as per agreement there is still time pending for construction or till the completion of construction you pay non-construction fees in Ludhiana Improvement Trust account.’ Further the opposite party submitted that no prior notice under Section 98 of Town Improvement Act, 1922 was sent before filing the complaint.

                   On merits, the opposite party submitted that the plot was allotted to original allottee Sh. Chuhar Singh son of Bishan Singh vide letter No.LIT/SB/9958 dated 29.10.1982 and an agreement was executed with original allottee. Thereafter on 23.12.1999 sale deed was executed in favour of original allottee. On 20.04.2000, the original allottee sold the property to Sh. Kamaljeet Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh who further sold the property to the complainant and Smt. Paramjit Kaur vide sale deed dated 12.09.2016. Vide letter No.LIT/SB/7946 dated 09.12.2016, the property was transferred in the name of the complainant and Paramjit Kaur after receiving No Construction Fee till 31.12.2016. It was also pleaded that the pot No.357-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana is ownership of Ramesh Rani wife of Sh. Mohinder Singh and not in the name of father of the complainant. Notice has been issued as per terms and conditions agreed by the complainant with the opposite party. The service of representations of the complainant was also admitted. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

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 Annexure-1 copy of memo No.7946 dated 09.12.2016, Annexure-2 copy of  receipt dated 29.11.2016, Annexure-3 copy of memo No.157 dated 29.12.2016, Annexure-4 copy of receipt dated 07.12.2016, Annexure-5 copy of receipt dated 13.07.2017, Annexure-6 copy of demand note for new connection order domestic, Annexure-7 copy or receipt dated 26.12.2016, Annexure-8 copy of letter dated 06.12.2018 of the complainant, Annexure-9 is copy of memo No.13251 dated 27.12.2018, Annexure-10 is copy of letter dated 04.01.2019 of the complainant, Annexure-11 is copy of memo No.13794 dated 29.01.2019, Annexure-12 is copy of ownership deed and closed evidence. In his additional evidence, the complainant further tendered Ex. CA13 copy of water and sewerage bill and Ex. CA14 office order of the opposite party dated 15.11.2013 and closed the additional evidence.  

4.                The opposite failed to adduce any evidence despite availing  number of opportunities. Rather on 09.11.2022, the counsel for the opposite party suffered a statement that he does not want to lead evidence and the written reply filed by OP be read as evidence of the opposite party.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply filed on record by both the parties.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that Sh. Chuhar Singh was the original allottee who was allotted the plot in question on 29.10.1982. After a gap of about 17 years the sale deed was executed in his favour on 23.12.1999. Further he transferred the property to one Kamaljeet Singh son of Gurdev Singh on 20.04.2000 who further sold the property to the complainant and Smt. Paramjit Kaur vide sale deed dated 12.09.2016. The opposite party transferred the said plot in favour of the complainant and Paramjit Kaur on 09.12.2016 after receiving  No Construction Fee and nothing was due. It is also the admitted fact that the building pan was approved and in pursuance thereof, the complainant started the construction and obtained water, sewerage and electricity connections.

7.                From the chronology of facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the complainant started and completed the construction within stipulated period. It has not been explained by the opposite party that how proviso of the letter No.LIT/SB/157 dated 29.12.2016 Annexure-3 has been invoked to calculate the charges of non-construction to the tune of Rs.1,57,000/-The opposite party has not brought into the record the criteria and method of calculation nor it seems to have been conveyed to the complainant. Even in response to representations of the complainant dated 06.12.2018 Annexure-8 and dated 04.01.2019 Annexure-10, the opposite party again reiterated this demand of Rs.1,57,000/- as non-construction charges without specifying rules and regulations. The opposite party did not pass any speaking order upon the representations of the complainant nor the complainant was afforded any opportunity of being heard with regard to the representations. Disposal of the representations of the complainant in a cryptic manner amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. In the given set of circumstances, the demand made by the opposite party for non-construction charges of Rs.1,57,000/- is legally unsustainable and unjustified and same is hereby quashed. As the complainant has suffered mental tension and pain due to act and conduct of the opposite party and so he is also entitled for composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is  allowed with an order that the demand of non-construction charges of Rs.1,57,000/- along with its incidental or consequential penalties is hereby quashed.  The opposite party shall pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

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

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Harjinder Singh Vs Improvement Trust Ludhiana                    CC/19/154

Present:       Complainant Sh. Harjinder Singh in person.

                   Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is  allowed with an order that the demand of non-construction charges of Rs.1,57,000/- along with its incidental or consequential penalties is hereby quashed.  The opposite party shall pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.