DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 138/2014
Date of Institution : 04.07.2014
Date of Decision : 16.03.2015
In the matter of:
Tejinder Kaur alias Navraj Kaur, aged about 45 years wife of Gurmeet Singh, resident of Kothi No. 8, Krishna Enclave, Sanghera Road, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Shri Krishna Builders & Developers, Sanghera Road, Barnala through its Partner Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singla son of Des Raj R/o Kothi No. 248, Astha Colony, Barnala.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. JK Kapil Advocate
For opposite party : Sh. Varinder Goel Advocate
ORDER: BY SH. SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Tejinder Kaur complainant (hereinafter referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Party (herein referred as to OP for short), on the ground that, OP is a colonizer firm and developed a colony namely Krishna Enclave, which is situated at Sanghera Road, Barnala.
It is submitted that, OP assured the CC that, Krishna Enclave will be developed as modern housing colony and all amenities would be provided therein. On their assurance, CC purchased a plot No. 8 measuring 246.27 Square Yards in this colony for a sum of Rs. 4,43,300/- from the OP and paid full payment. The possession of the plot was delivered to the CC and OP also issued a certificate of possession to her.
It is further submitted that, an allotment letter-cum-agreement for sale was also executed between the CC and OP. Further, OP in pursuance of the agreement also executed a registered sale deed bearing No. 2067 dated 2.8.2012 in favour of the CC. It is clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the agreement that, the developer will provide all the basic amenities in the colony like laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines and electrical lines.
It is further submitted that, CC constructed a house on the plot after getting building plan approved from the Municipal Council, Barnala and has been residing there since May, 2014. But, the OP has failed to provide the basic amenities like water lines, sewer lines and electrical lines in the colony despite repeated requests of the CC. Even, CC faced a lot of problems when she got constructed her house due to the absence of basic amenities.
It is further submitted that, CC had applied to Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. for an electric connection in the name of her son Bikramjit Singh, but they denied the electricity connection due to non laying of electrical lines in the colony, because of which CC has been using generator to meet out her electricity needs, which also caused monetary loss to the CC.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, CC has sought the following reliefs against the OP.-
1) OP be directed to provide water lines, sewer lines and electrical lines in the colony.
2) OP be further directed to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
Complaint of the CC is signed and verified. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, OP has opposed the complaint of the CC by taking legal objections, on the ground that, present complaint is not maintainable and CC has concealed material facts. Further, CC has no locus standi to file the present complaint.
On merits, it is admitted that, CC purchased a plot measuring 246.27 Square Yards from the OP, which was purchased as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter and agreement for sale but after the execution of sale deed both the parties will be bounded by the terms and conditions of the sale deed, whereas CC has not enclosed copy of the sale deed with her complaint.
It is further submitted that, no letter was issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to the CC for the denial of electric connection. All the facilities were already provided by the OP in the colony in question. Further, after the execution of the sale deed the residents of colony are jointly or severally responsible for all the facilities required for the maintenance and development of colony. Further, number of residents of this colony had already obtained the electric connection, but if any objection raised by the PSPCL, then CC is bound to clear the same. CC has not enclosed any receipt or objection letter issued by the PSPCL.
Thus alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The version of OP is signed and verified.
3. CC in support of her claim, has tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of sale deed Ex.C-2, copy of certificate of possession Ex.C-3, copy of allotment letter cum agreement for sale Ex.C-4, copy of approval Ex.C-5, copy of application for electricity connection Ex.C-6, copy of self declaration Ex.C-7 and closed her evidence.
4. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of the CC, OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Singla Ex.OP-1 and closed its evidence.
5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, version filed by the OP, evidence of parties and also heard both the counsel for the parties at length.
6. It is an admitted fact that, CC had purchased a plot measuring 246.27 Square yards from the OP in their colony namely Krishna Enclave. It is also an admitted fact that, plot was purchased by the CC as per terms and conditions of allotment letter and agreement for sale. It is further admitted that, later on OP executed a registered sale deed of the above mentioned plot bearing No. 2067 dated 2.8.2012 in favour of the CC. It is further not in dispute that, CC constructed a house over the aforementioned plot and residing in the colony developed by OP.
The main grievance of the CC in her complaint is that, at the time of purchase of plot it was assured by the OP that, OP will provide all the basic amenities like laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines and electrical lines in the colony in which the plot of the CC is situated, but OP failed to provide these amenities despite her repeated requests, due to which CC has to suffer a lot of inconvenience and hardship. Further, another grievance of the CC in her complaint is that, PSPCL has not provided electricity connection to her in the name of her son due to non laying of electric lines in the colony by the OP and she is fully dependent on a generator to meet her electricity needs, which cause much monetary loss to the CC.
On the other hand, the OP clearly mentioned in their version that, they already provided all the required facilities in the colony developed by them. They further mentioned in their version that, many residents of colony already obtained electric connection from the PSPCL and if any objection raised by PSPCL to provide connection to the CC, then it is the CC who is at some fault.
In this way, the main controversy in this case between the parties is that, whether OP provided the required facilities in the colony, in which the plot of the CC is situated, which was purchased from the OP.
To prove this point, firstly we have relied upon Ex.C-5, which is the approval of the Municipal Council, Barnala in favour of the CC to construct a house on the plot so purchased by her from the OP and this approval is only issued by the Municipal Council, Barnala, when the colony in question is an approved colony, so it is clearly proved that, Krishna Enclave Colony developed by OP is an approved colony.
Secondly, to prove this point we mainly relied upon a report of Local Commissioner, which was appointed by this Forum on the application so moved by the CC on 30.9.2014. It is clearly mentioned in this report that, the Local Commissioner visited the spot and inspected the same in the presence of representatives of the parties. He further mentioned in his report that, sewerage pipes are underground fixed and properly maintained for use of sewerage system to the residential houses exists in the colony and it is specifically mentioned that, facility of sewerage is also provided to Kothi No. 8 of the CC and in working condition. It is also mentioned in his report that, even the Sewerage Treatment Plant is installed in this colony.
It is further mentioned in this report that, there is underground fitting of water supply pipes to each residential house in the colony and also to the house of the CC. Even, a water tank is also constructed by the OP for the availability of water to the residents of the colony.
In the later part of this report, it is also mentioned by the Local Commissioner Sh. Gagandeep Garg Advocate that, panel boxes are fixed in front of residential houses for affixing electricity meters, but there is no meter installed in these panel boxes, whereas in front of the houses of the residents of this colony underground fitting of electricity wires are also there to each house. Even, street lights are also arranged by the OP in this colony for the facility of the residents of the colony.
We have minutely perused this report and in our view the facilities of sewer lines and water lines are duly provided by the OP in this colony. Even, as per this report, the underground fitting of electricity wires are also there to each house, but the Local Commissioner also mentioned in the last of his report that, there are only temporary meters installed in the houses of the colony and in the house of the CC even there is no temporary meter for the purpose of electricity. Later on, CC also moved an application for the cross examination of the Local Commissioner, which stands dismissed as the Local Commissioner was appointed only on the application of the CC.
In this way, only it is proved from this report that, CC has no electricity connection in her house, but she has failed to prove that, PSPCL did not release the electricity connection due to any deficiency on the part of the OP. To prove this point, CC has filed copy of application for the electricity connection Ex.C-6 and copy of undertaking Ex.C-7, but she has not produced any receipt regarding the payment of requisite fee, which is taken by the PSPCL to release any electric connection. She further failed to produce any refusal from PSPCL Authorities for providing an electric connection due to any deficiency on the part of the OP. So, in our view, CC failed to prove that, PSPCL has not released the connection to her, due to any deficiency on the part of the OP. Further, CC failed to array the PSPCL as one of the OPs to prove that, what objections PSPCL raised to release the connection in the premises of the CC.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. There is no order as to cost or compensation. However, CC is at liberty to apply for an electricity connection with the PSPCL according to rules and if PSPCL does not release the connection due to any deficiency on the part of the OP, then CC can file a fresh complaint against the OP before this Forum, if she desires so. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
16th Day of March 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
