Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/27

Navdeep Sigh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Barjit Kaur Adv.

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 27 dated 09.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 06.12.2022.

 

Navdeep Singh, aged about 30 years S/o. Manmohan Singh, resident of I-Ground Floor, HIG Flats, Block-A, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                           ..…Complainant 

•  

Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman.                                                                                                                   …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Ms. Barjit Kaur, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Bhalinder Singh Gill, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the year 2016, the opposite party launched a development scheme named “Atal Apartment” for allotment of flats and the scheme was widely publicized through leading newspapers. In response to the advertisement, the complainant applied for allotment of HIG flat vide form No.2490. He deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide bank draft No.595217 dated 18.10.2016 drawn on Dena Bank, Ludhiana and the same was received by the opposite party on 19.10.2016. The complainant was declared successful in draw of lots and a flat No.317/9^th floor was allotted to the complainant vide letter No.9333 dated 08.03.2017 but till then there was no construction on the site meant for the scheme and ultimately, the scheme was dropped by the opposite party. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party time and again for refund of money along with interest but on 22.01.2018, the opposite party issued a draft No.414679 dated 22.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant stated that the amount has been utilized by the opposite party for a period w.e.f. 18.10.2016 to 22.01.2018 and did not pay the interest so the complainant is entitled to interest @9% per annum from the opposite party along with suitable and fair compensation for mental and emotional harassment. The complainant also prayed for litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party filed written statement in which the opposite party took preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation and further that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. Further the complalinant has failed to deposit 15% price of the flat and 6% cess charges, security, agreement SP fees as stipulate in the allotment letter. It was further stated that the scheme was a self finance scheme but the complainant and other allottees have not deposited the remaining sale price as per allotment letter. Even demand was raised vide letter Mo.LIT/SB/642 dated 02.05.2017 to the complainant and due to which the construction activity could not be commenced. According to clause 8 of the allotment letter if the allottee fails to pay the installments, then the opposite party has right to cancel the allotment, to resume the flat and to forfeit the initial amount paid by the complainant but the opposite party  considering the claim sympathetically did not forfeit the initial amount and refunded the amount of deposit.  Further there is no provision of payment of interest. The other allegations of the complaint are denied being incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.                In support of their claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit as 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 a letter dated 06.04.2017 asking for refund of money along with interest, Ex. C2 is the letter dated 08.05.2017 whereby the complainant asked the opposite party regarding likelihood of start of construction, Ex. C3 is the acknowledgement dated 19.10.2016 regarding receipt of application along with bank draft, Ex. C4 is the letter written by the opposite party  to the complainant calling upon him to pay the balance amount as per allotment letter along with penalty, Ex. C5 is the photocopy of demand draft and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Rajeev Sabherwal, Senior Assistant of the opposite party along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of allotment letter dated 08.03.2017, Ex. R2 is the letter dated 02.05.2017 and closed the evidence.

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

6.                Perusal of clause 3 and 4 of the allotment letter dated 08.03.2017 Ex. R1 which is reproduced as under:-

“3.     You are requested to make the following payment on the following terms & conditions as per schedule. You will have to pay 6% cess of total price of the flat at the time of depositing 15% price of the flat (including cess charges, security, agreement, S.P. fees). You will have to deposit Total Payable Amount within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter.

4.       Installment                              Amount            Receipt No.    Date of payment

          Total 15% amount                   9,93,000.00                                               

(-) Earnest money           6,50,000.00

5% balance amount        3,43,000.00

6% cess                          3,97,200.00         

Security                          500.00                                    

Agreement fees               100.00

Site plan                         150.00

Total payable amount     7,40,950.00                   Due date 07.04.2017”

7.                The complainant was required to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,40,950/- till  07.04.2017 i.e. within 30 days from the issuance of allotment letter So the remaining amount was required to be paid in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.93,784/-  per month. Further clause 8 of the Ex. R1 stipulated that the allottee will be bound to pay/deposit amount of each installments before the date fixed for payment and an his/her balance, he/she shall be bound to pay interest @12% till the payment is made. In case allottee fails to deposit 3 installments regularly, it shall be presumed that he/she is not interested to retain the allotment of the flat which will be resumed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust without any further notice and the amount already deposited by the allottee with Ludhiana Improvement Trust shall be forfeited by the Trust and the allotment shall be deemed to be cancelled without any further notice. 

8.                It can easily be assumed from the record that the complainant did not pay the stipulated amount within the prescribed period. Instead after elapse of the period i.e. 07.04.2017 but just a day before i.e. on 06.04.2017, the complainant wrote a letter Ex. C1 to the opposite party asking for refund along with interest. Even through letter Ex. C2, the complainant made certain queries from the opposite party only but did not deposit the amount. Due to the default made by the complainant and other allottees, the opposite party was constrained to drop the scheme sensing non-feasibility. However, the opposite party had refunded the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant on 22.01.2018.          

9.                It is well settled law that grant of interest over and above the agreement is an equitable relief. It is also the cardinal principle of law that one who seeks equity must do equity. In the case in hand, the act and conduct of the complainant is such that no equity arises in his favour. As such, he is no entitled to equitable relief of interest prayed for, for a period w.e.f. 18.10.2016 to 22.01.2018.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Navdeep Singh Vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust                     CC/19/27   

Present:       Ms. Barjit Kaur, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Bhalinder Singh Gill, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 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:06.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.