PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11/12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 represented themselves to be directors of the opposite party No. 1 to complainant when they approached complainant for sale of plot bearing No. 65 measuring 320 Sq yard situated at village Heir, Amritsar. The complainant was shown plot only at the time of execution of agreement and no document was shown or provided to her and it was mentioned in the clause 8 of the agreement dated 16.3.2006 that all notarized copies of documents etc. shall be provided to complainant. It was further mentioned in the above said agreement in clause No. 9 that purchaser shall abide by terms and regulations of PUDA as opposite party assured complainant that plot was PUDA approved. At the time of entering in to agreement to sell an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to opposite parties. Purpose of complaint for purchasing plot was to construct house. The opposite party after receipt of money neither handed over any paper to the complainant nor executed sale deed in her favour despite demand and opposite party No. 3 kept extending dates from 10.4.2008 to 30.6.2008 to 30.10.2008 to 31.7.2009 to 31.7.2010 to 15.1.2011 to 31.3.2012 to 31.12.2012 to 31.12.2013 to 31.3.2015 to 31.3.2017. But no papers were supplied to complainant till date nor executed sale deed in her favour. Feeling aggrieved with attitude of opposite party, the complainant issued a letter to opposite party which received but they did not reply. The complainant again wrote letter to opposite party on 23.1.2017  and this reply was given by the opposite party on 2.2.2017 but neither documents have been given to complainant nor sale deed was executed. Complainant was ultimately constrained to issue legal notice on 21.2.2017 which opposite party received but did not take any action in the matter. Ultimately complainant wrote letter to opposite party on 3.5.2017 which they received but did not reply neither gave papers to complainant nor executed sale deed nor returned money with interest. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties may be directed

          (i)      To refund an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to complainant for date of payment.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as cost of legal expenses incurred by complainant and mental, physical torture and discomfort caused to complainant

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by inter alia pleadings that the present complaint is not maintainable legally or otherwise. The present complaint has been filed with malafide intention just to put pressure on the opposite parties and to drag them in to frivolous litigation, otherwise, there is no merit in this complaint and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in any manner. There is no cause of action in favour of complainant to file the present complaint nor the complaint discloses the actionable cause of action. The complainant has concealed/ suppressed the true/ material facts from this commission, as such, she has come to this commission unclean hands and is not entitled to any reliefs claimed by her and this complaint on this score is also liable to be dismissed. The complainant had approached the opposite parties for the purchase of plot.  All the relevant documents were shown to her by the opposite parties and she had satisfied herself about all the particulars, location, title etc. of the said plot and there after she had agreed to purchase it as per the terms and conditions settled between the parties and mentioned in the agreement dated 16.3.2006. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 always adhered to the terms and conditions of the PUDA.  The dates for the purpose of execution of the sale deed were extended with the consent of both the parties and all the relevant papers were supplied to her and she had satisfied herself about the same. The sale deed could not be executed due to the change in the Govt. policy with respect to the residential colonies in the Punjab State and thus, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. The version of the complainant cannot be believed because she herself remained in the service of PUDA and she knows all the rules and regulations. She cannot blame the opposite parties. There is no negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in any manner. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. 

4        Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2 and it was duly served but it opted not to come forward to contest the complaint and consequently, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte. 

5        To prove her case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of agreement to sell Ex. C-1, copy of the letter Ex. C-3, copy of the reply to letter Ex. C-4, copy of the reply to letter Ex. C-5, copy of the legal notice Ex. C-6, copy of the postal receipts Ex. C-7, copy of the legal notice Ex. C-8, copy of the letter Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.  Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Kapil Mehra, Director Ex. OP1,3/1 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and 3 have gone through the record on the file.

7        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 approached complainant for sale of plot bearing No. 65 measuring 320 Sq yard situated at village Heir, Amritsar. The complainant was shown plot only at the time of execution of agreement and no document was shown or provided to her and it was mentioned in the clause 8 of the agreement dated 16.3.2006 that all notarized copies of documents etc. shall be provided to complainant. he further contended that it was further mentioned in the above said agreement in clause No. 9 that purchaser shall abide by terms and regulations of PUDA as opposite party assured the complainant that plot was PUDA approved. At the time of entering in to agreement to sell an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to opposite parties. Purpose of complaint for purchasing plot was to construct house. The opposite party after receipt of money neither handed over any paper to the complainant nor executed sale deed in her favour despite demand and opposite party No. 3 kept extending dates from 10.4.2008 to 30.6.2008 to 30.10.2008 to 31.7.2009 to 31.7.2010 to 15.1.2011 to 31.3.2012 to 31.12.2012 to 31.12.2013 to 31.3.2015 to 31.3.2017. But no papers were supplied to complainant till date nor executed sale deed in her favour. The complainant wrote letter to opposite party on 23.1.2017 and this reply was given by the opposite party on 2.2.2017 but neither documents have been given to complainant for sale deed was executed. He further contended that the complainant was ultimately constrained to issue legal notice on 21.2.2017 which opposite party received but did not take any action in the matter. He further contended that complainant wrote letter to opposite party on 3.5.2017 which they received but did not reply nor gave papers to complainant nor executed sale deed nor returned money with interest and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

8        On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the present complaint is not maintainable legally. The present complaint has been filed with malafide intention just to put pressure on the opposite parties and to drag them in to frivolous litigation, otherwise, there is no merit in this complaint and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in any manner. The complainant had approached the opposite parties for the purchase of plot.  All the relevant documents were shown to her by the opposite parties and she had satisfied herself about all the particulars, location, title etc. of the said plot. He further contended that thereafter she had agreed to purchase it as per the terms and conditions settled between the parties and mentioned in the agreement dated 16.3.2006. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 always adhered to the terms and conditions of the PUDA.  The dates for the purpose of execution of the sale deed were extended with the consent of both the parties and all the relevant papers were supplied to her and she had satisfied herself about the same. The sale deed could not be executed due to the change in the Govt. Policy with respect to the residential colonies in the Punjab State and thus, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. He further contended that the version of the complainant cannot be believed because she herself remained in the service of PUDA and she knows all the rules and regulations. She cannot blame the opposite parties. There is no negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in any manner. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. 

9        In the present case it is not disputed that the opposite parties have executed an agreement to sell dated 16.3.2006 in favour of complainant which is Ex. C-2 on record. It is also not disputed that the complainant has made the payment of earnest money to the opposite party. It is also not disputed in the present case that the dates for execution  and registration of the sale deed was extended time to time up to the year 2017. The complainant written so many registered letters to the opposite party for seeking refund of money for the plot. Further the complainant issued the legal notice to the opposite party through his counsel for the refund of money which was spent on the purchase of plot. These letters as well as legal notice clearly show that the complainant has many times requested to the opposite party either to supply the documents or in the alternative refund the amount paid by her with interest but the opposite party keep on lingering the matter for a long time. From the perusal of agreement to sell Ex. C-2 it clearly shows that the date for registration of the sale deed was extended many times. But the opposite party has never supplied the documents as well as never exhibited the sale deed as per agreement till date. The opposite parties have never disclosed to the complainant as to what is the change of Govt. policy with regard to residential colonies. Copy of policy in this regard has not been placed on record by opposite parties. Hence the complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties by not registration of the sale deed as well as in the alternative refund of money which was claimed by the complainant many times. Hence it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

10      In view of above discussion we allow the present complaint and the Opposite parties are directed to refund the money which was received by the opposite parties as the consideration of the sale deed i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint  till the date of realization.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs.Ten Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

15.09.2022