Complainant Kanav Jindal  has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to deliver the possession of the said flat alongwith  Rs.20,00,000/-  to him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that in the year 2010, the opposite party presented a scheme of MIC Multi Storied Flats under self financing scheme situated at Jalandhar-Jammu Bye Pass, Pathankot. Under the said scheme, he had applied for MIG Flats under the abovesaid scheme and in this respect, he also participated in the said auction and also on 19.11.2010 as per the draw under Self Financing Scheme. He was allotted M.I.G. Flat No.204-A in Block A (2^nd Floor) measuring about 1015 Sq.ft and at the time of draw, he deposited earnest money i.e 10% of the entire sale consideration i.e. Rs.2,08,000/- with the opposite party at the spot. He has next pleaded that as per the scheme of the opposite party, he deposited the remaining entire sale consideration of Rs.18,74,688/- vide Draft no.092239 dated 10.2.2011 drawn on Central Bank of India, Pathankot and the opposite party issued the receipt dated 11.2.2011 to him regarding the same. As per the terms and condition no.5, the installments were payable within 2-1/2 years from the date of auction/allotment and after 2-1/2 years from the last installment, possession of the property was to be delivered to him. After the expiry of 2-1/2 years, he requested many times to the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the M.I.G. Flat, but the opposite party was lingering on the matter by one way and the other. As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme and as per the law, the opposite party is legally bound to deliver the actual physical possession of the flat to him but they are harassing him by one way or the other. He is still suffering mentally, financially and physically loss due to the illegal act of the opposite party. In the month of November 2017, he again approached the opposite party to deliver the possession of the MIG flat or to return the amount alongwith interest to him but all in vain.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complaint filed by the complainant is premature. On merits, it was submitted that complainant has been allotted flat No.204-A (2^nd Floor) measuring about 1012 Sq.Feet. It was admitted that the complainant deposited 10% at the time of draw.  The payment was to be made in installments within 2-1/2 years from the draw. The Flats are being constructed under the MIG Scheme by the opposite party at a fast speed and the construction is at its final phase which is likely to be completed in near future months and after completion of construction and other formalities the opposite party will deliver possession to all the allottees including complainant. All averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed that the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1 and of Sh.Sushil Kumar Ex.CW-2, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.  

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit Anurag Sharma J.E. Ex.OP-1 and copy of letter dated 13.1.2011 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable and statutorily acceptable merit as evidenced by the supporting document(s) duly produced on record by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant being an allottee of the MIG Flat # 204-A, Development Scheme of the OP Improvement Trust and having admittedly deposited its full determined amount of Rs. 20,82,688/- within the stipulated period of 2½ Years of allotment , has become entitled to its possession  i.e., after another period of 2½ years from the date of final payment in terms of clause 5) of the allotment letter dated 13.01.2011. Further, the slow pace of progress & incomplete construction-status of allotted Flats (in question) necessitated the filing of the present complaint. We observe that the present dispute pertains to ‘infringement’ of complainant’s consumer rights by way of ‘non-handing over’ of timely possession of the fully paid-for allotted ‘flat’ to him on account of its incomplete construction-status followed by indifferent attitude towards its ‘redressal’ by the OP Trust amounting to ‘unfair trade practice’ under the applicable statute.

7.       We find that the OP Trust through its written reply supported by its lone affidavit Ex.OP1 (of its JE) dated 04.07.2018 have admitted the ‘incomplete’ & under-construction status (in progress/almost near completion) and that speaks volumes of its ‘deficiency in service’ coupled with ‘unfair trade practice’ in its routine professional dealings with ‘consumers’. We also observe that the OP Trust has filed only the lone affidavit (Ex.OP1) of its JE to prosecute its defense with however no cogent evidence to prove the legal validity and genuineness of the arbitrarily caused ‘delay’ in handing over the possession of the fully paid for housing-flat; causing harassment & monetary loss to the complainant. We also determine that the OP Trust authorities are fully liable to pay for the arbitrary ‘delay’ but only a moderate cost and compensation since the Bank interest/ other costs of funds etc are primarily attributable more to the complainant’s ‘repayment’ capacity than to other factors. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party (Improvement Trust authorities) to expedite handing over of the possession of the ‘flat’ (in question) complete in all respects with all the promised infrastructure facilities (latest by 31.10.2018) to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the delay/ harassment caused and Rs 5,000/- as cost of present litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders failing which proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP.

9.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President

ANNOUNCED:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)                       

July 20,2018.                                                           Member                                       

*MK*