Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/471

Shekhar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s MGH Colonizers & Builders Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Gupta

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:471 dated 13.10.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 08.02.2023.

 

Shekhar Gupta aged 55 years son of Late Sh. P.C. Gupta, R/o. H. No.1355/3, Kitchlu Nagar Ext., Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                               .…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. MGH Colonizers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., SCF-6, Green City, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Directors.
2. Harbans Singh, Director,
3. Simranjit Singh, Director,
4. Gurmeet Singh, Director,
5. Harwinder Singh, Director,

all Director of MGH Colonizers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. ....Opposite parties 

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             :         Sh. Shekhar Gutpa in person.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that late Smt. Brij Lata, mother of the complainant was a retired as Principal of Government School, Mullanpur, Gareeb Dass in the year 1997 and was living with the complainant at Ludhiana. Opposite party No.1 is a company approved by GLADA and opposite party No.2 to 5 are its Directors who are in the trade of carving out colony and selling plots. The opposite parties carved out a colony namely Green Avenue at Balloke Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana and sold some of the plots through sale deeds and allotted the same to various buyers. The complainant stated that plot No.213 measuring 27’x60’ i.e. 180 sq. yards situated in Green Avenue, Balloke Road, Ludhiana was allotted by the opposite parties to one Sunil Kumar S/o. Sh. Roop Chand R/o. H. No.1525, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana on 30.01.2005 and said plot was purchased by mother of the complainant from Sunil Kumar in the year 2012 by paying full and final consideration amount. The buyer was having letter of possession of plot issued by the opposite parties. After the purchase of the plot, mother of the complainant applied for transfer of plot with opposite parties and opposite parties transferred the same in their record in the name of mother of the complaint after receiving transfer fee and also handed over the possession letter. The complainant further stated that his mother expired on 01.09.2016 leaving behind the complainant and his sister Dr. Kamini Jain as her legal heirs. Before her death, she also executed a notarized will dated 07.07.2007 bequeathing the said plot in the name of the complainant. In the year 2020, the complainant approached the opposite parties and their dealing official Mr. Sajan in their office with request to transfer the plot in his favour and execute and get registered the sale deed. They asked the complainant to submit the documents which are reproduced as under:-

A) Death certificate of mother,

B) Legal heir certificate from SDM, Ludhiana,

C) Copy of will

D) Original re-allotment letter of possession

E) Magistrate attested affidavit of sister of applicant and the applicant itself.

The complainant submitted that he submitted all the documents in the office of opposite parties but after one month, the opposite parties returned the documents to him by saying that he had to bear/despot non-construction charges of Rs.2,50,000/- approximately. The complainant pointed out that in the letter of possession, there was no such condition settled between the parties but the opposite parties refused to transfer the plot without getting the money. The complainant served a legal notice dated 11.06.2021 upon the opposite but no reply was given by the opposite parties. The demand of non-construction charges by the opposite parties and refusal to transfer the plot amounts to malpractice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant had suffered mental harassment. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the opposite parties to transfer the plot in his name without charging non-construction charges or any other charges and execute sale deed in his favour and also to pay Rs.50,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, initially Sh. Bikram, Advocate appeared and filed memo of appearance on 07.09.2022 but thereafter, none turned up for the opposite parties nor filed regular power of attorney and written statement and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.10.2022.

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 agreement of sale dated 30.01.2005 in the name of Sunil Kumar, Ex. C2 is the affidavit of Sunil Kumar  dated 21.04.2012, Ex. C3 is the re-allotment letter of possession dated 19.05.2012 in the name of Smt. Brij Lata, Ex. C4 is the will dated 07.07.2007, Ex. C5 is the copy of aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C6 is the copy of death certificate of Brij Lata, Ex. C7 is the copy of affidavit dated 21.10.2020 of the complainant, Ex. C8 is the copy of affidavit dated 18.01.2021 of  Dr. Kamini Jain, Ex. C9 is the copy of legal heir certificate issued by SDM, Ludhiana (West) dated 09.11.2018, Ex. C10 is the legal notice dated 11.06.2021, Ex. C11 to Ex. C15 are the copies of postal receipts and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                Originally, one Sunil Kumar son of Roop Chand, resident of Ludhiana was the allottee of plot in question vide agreement of sale Ex. C1 executed by the opposite parties in his favour which empowered him to further sell or transfer the plot with the permission of the opposite parties. However, there was no condition with regard to time schedule for raising construction over the said plot or the levying of non-construction charges etc. Mother of the complainant namely Smt. Brij Lata  purchased the said plot and it was re-allotted in her name by the opposite parties vide re-allotment/letter of possession dated 19.05.2012 Ex. C3. Even in this letter, there was no specific condition with regard to time schedule for construction or levying of non-construction charges in case the construction is not completed within stipulated time. Unfortunately, mother of the complainant Smt. Brij Lata died on 01.09.2016 leaving behind the complainant and his sister namely Dr. Kamini Jain as her legal heirs. She also executed a will dated 07.07.2007 bequeathing the plot in question in the name of the complainant. In order to get the plot transferred in his name in the year 2020, the complainant submitted following documents to the opposite parties+:-

A) Death certificate of mother (Ex. C6),

B) Legal heir certificate from SDM, Ludhiana (Ex. C9),

C) Copy of will (Ex. C4),

D) Original re-allotment letter of possession (Ex. C3),

E) Magistrate attested affidavit of sister of applicant and the applicant itself (Ex. C7 and Ex. C8)

But the same were returned to him and a demand of approximately Rs.2,50,000/- raised in the name of non-construction charges. The complainant had been approaching the opposite parties for the transferring the plot in his name and for execution of sale deed in his favour but all in vein. Even he had served a legal notice dated 11.06.2021 Ex. C10 calling upon the opposite parties to do the needful but the opposite parties did not respond favourably. From the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the complainant has stepped into the shoes of the original allottee. When there is no stipulation of levying of non-construction charges in original allotment, the subsequent purchasers/transferee cannot be burdened with the same. 

6.                In this regard, reference can be made to case titled as Improvement Trust, Barnala Vs Mrs. Shashi Kansal and others passed in Appeal No.326 of 1998 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide its order dated 12.01.1999 in which it has been held that the question for consideration is as to whether on the basis of such instructions could the Improvement Trust recover penalty or extension fee for non-construction on the plots allotted in November 27, 1987.Copies of the allotment letters were produced before the District Forum annexure C1 and C2. Clause 7 thereof provided for completing the building on the plots allotted within three years from the date of allotment. Clause 11 of the allotment letter further provides that allotment is subject to the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act and the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 as amended from time to time. There is no provision in the allotment letters referred to above in the present case authorizing the Improvement Trust to charge penalty on account of non-construction on the plots in dispute. Even if the State Government had issued  such instructions annexures R-1 and R2 it was incumbent upon the Improvement Trust to incorporate such terms and conditions as part of the allotment letters. In the absence of that, Improvement Trust was not authorized legally to impose penalty for non-construction of buildings on the plots in dispute. Reference can be further made to the Revision Petition No.541 of 1999 in the case titled as Improvement Trust, Barnala Vs Shashi Kansal decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 05.09.2005 whereby it has been held that the State Commission rightly arrived at the conclusion that the Circular issued by the government is to be implemented as with retrospective effect from 1^st January, 1988 and the same is not applicable as the allotment letter dt. 27.11.1987 was issued to the respondent. Further there is no other provision under the Act to levy penalty in case of delay in making construction.

7.                The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to transfer the plot No.213 in the name of the complainant without charging non-construction charges and also to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order along with composite cost of Rs.20,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to transfer the plot in question in the name of the complainant without charging non-construction charges and also to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall pay 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.

 

 

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:08.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Shekhar Gupta Vs M/s. MGH Colonizers & Builders              CC/21/471

Present:       Complainant Sh. Shekhar Gupta in person. 

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   The complainant closed his evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C15.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to transfer the plot in question in the name of the complainant without charging non-construction charges and also to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall pay 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.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.