Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/657

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

15 Jan 2021

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 657 dated 29.10.2018.                                                      

                                                   Date of decision: 15.01.2021. 

 

Vijay Kumar Sharda S/o.Rakha Ram Sharda, R/o.77-D, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust (LIT), Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda in person.   

For OP                           :         Sh. Gurjit Singh Gill, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                This complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by the above named complainant on the allegations that he was allotted Plot No.77-D, measuring 156.66 square yards in July 1976 by the OP trust. Due to some irregularities in the construction raised over the plot, the complainant was directed to pay compounding charges of Rs.910/-, which were duly deposited vide receipt No.57055 dated 28.07.1983. Eventually, the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant on 13.11.1984.  It is further alleged that due to first enhancement made by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in the year 1987, the Government of Punjab decided to charge Rs.34+15% interest  per square yards as enhanced value of the plot vide a letter No.1856 dated 10.02.1999. The complainant deposited his enhancement charges of Rs.15,666/- vide receipt No.325 dated 15.03.1999. However, when the complainant applied for “No Due Certificate” on 19.08.10214, the OP Trust again raised a demand of Rs.42,959/- vide memo No.10790 dated 25.11.2014. This amount has been claimed due to second enhancement ordered by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding CWP No.1599 dated 02.05.1996 whereby enhancement of Rs.8 per square yards was made in respect of Block-B of Kitchlu Nagar. As consequence of this enhancement, after as many as three years of decision of Hon’ble High Court, resolutionNo.4 dated 21.05.2009 was passed by the OP Trust to charge Rs.199/- per square yards from the allottees of Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. The resolution of enhancement was notified by way of notice in the newspaper on 12.12.2012 i.e. after a period of 3 years 7 months from the passing of the resolution. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana on 05.12.2014 requesting that the enhanced price may be charged @ Rs.64.20 per square yards and the enhancement calculated @ Rs.199/-  by the OP trust was wrong. The District Forum vide its order dated 27.09.2016 not only quashed the demand notice for Rs.42,959/- dated 15.11.2014, but also directed the Trust to recalculate the enhancement rate in consultation with the allottees. Apart from that, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded by the District Forum. The OP Trust preferred an appeal with the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2017. After the dismissal of the appeal by Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant filed execution application dated 04.10.2017 and during the pendency of the execution application, the OP Trust submitted a copy of resolution No.13 dated 09.01.2018 whereby OP Trust agreed to charge Rs.64.21 per square yards as enhancement, which the complainant was ready to pay. However, in the resolution No.13 itself, the OP Trust has further claimed an amount of Rs.20.51 per square yards as interest for 11 years 7 months i.e. from 01.06.2006 to 31.12.2017. The claim of the interest on the part of OP Trust is against the law as there was acute delay on the part of the Trust itself. The Trust has since wrongly and illegally issued a demand notice for Rs.67,220/-  to the complainant, which includes enhancement costs of Rs.29,860/- @ Rs.199/- per square yards plus interest of Rs.31,400/- and penalty of Rs.3970/-. The complainant filed reply to the notice dated 04.09.2018, asking the Trust to withdraw the said amount, but to no avail. In the end, it has been requested that the demand notice for the amount of Rs.67,220/- dated 13.08.2018 be quashed and the OP Trust be directed to issue demand notice amounting to Rs,10,059/- @ Rs.64.21 per square yards against the plot measuring 156.66 square yards. The complainant has further claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for having suffered harassment and tension at the hands of the OP Trust along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared through counsel, but failed to file written statement despite numerous opportunities granted for the purpose. Eventually, vide order dated 09.05.2019, the right of the OP for filing written statement was forfeited.

3.                In order to prove his case, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10 and closed his evidence.

4.                No evidence was lead on behalf of the OP.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

6.                It is not disputed that after second enhancement made by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the OP Trust has passed a resolution claiming the recovery of enhanced price @ Rs.64.21 per square yards + Rs.20.51 per square yards as interest from 01.06.2006 to 31.12.2017. The complainant claims that the OP Trust is not entitled to charge interest of Rs.20.51 per square yards as the delay, if any, took place on the part of the Trust as it did not take prompt action in the year 2006 itself, when the order of enhancement was passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.05.2006. It is not disputed that initially resolution No.4 dated 21.05.2009 was passed by the OP Trust, which was set aside by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide order Ex. C2 and by way of this order, the OP Trust was directed to refix the enhanced amount after hearing the complainant. Thereafter, as per order Ex. C2, OP Trust decided to charge Rs.85/- which included interest of Rs.20.51 per square yards for 11 years 7 months. The claim of interest on the part of OP Trust does not appear to be justified, considering the fact that the delay, if any, caused for recovery of enhanced price from the plot holders is attributable to the OP Trust and not to the allottees. The order of enhancement was passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the year 2006 and the OP Trust kept sleeping till 21.05.2009 when resolution No.4 was passed after a period about 3 years. The said resolution was challenged and was set aside by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as well as by Hon’ble State Commission/ Therefore, the OP Trust cannot be allowed to claim interest of Rs.20.51 per square yards. In this regard, the reference can also be made to the law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Charanjit Bajaj Vs State of Haryana 1986 PLJ 601, whereby it is held that the liability of the plot holders for payment of additional price is limited to the extent of enhanced amount of compensation paid by Haryana Urban Development Authority and the plot holder is not liable to pay interest for the period intervening between the deposit of compensation and issue of notice, if the Authority does not take prompt action in making recovery of the enhanced amount of compensation and the plot holders cannot be made to suffer for the lapse on the point of the Trust itself. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid case, the recovery of interest claimed by OP Trust @ Rs.20.51 is set aside and the OP Trust is directed to accept the enhanced price from the complainant @ Rs.64.20 per square yards. 

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed to the extent that the OP Trust shall demand and accept the enhancement amount of Rs.10,059/- @ Rs.64.21 x 156.66 square yards. The complainant is further held entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) from OP. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.       

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

 

                    (Jyotsna Thatai)                             (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.01.2021.

Gobind Ram.