| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 446 of 4.12.2017 Decided on: 4.8.2021 Tirlochan Singh aged 49 years, son of Sh.Jaswant Singh, resident of House No.2068/1, Sector 47-C,Chandigarh. …………...Complainant Versus PUDA, Patiala through its Chairman. …………Opposite Party. Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Ranjit Singh, counsel for complainant. Smt.Kusum Sood, counsel for OP. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Tirlochan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against PUDA (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that the complainant is allottee of residential plot No.189 measuring 256.66 sq. yards in Scheduled Caste Category, at PUDA Enclave, Nabha vide memo No.PDA-EO-PUDA(A-5)/2015/409 dated 21.8.2015, the tentative price of which was Rs.1940350/- calculated @ Rs.7200/- per sq. yard. It is averred that initial 25% amount of Rs.4,60,800/- has already been deposited by the complainant .It is averred that the OP has promised to remove the trees, to provide water supply, sewerage piping, construction of roads, electric polls, construction of parks and to provide other basic amenities and to hand over the possession of the plot after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier but the OP failed to fulfill its promise. It is further averred that the complainant wrote an application to the OP under RTI Act,2005 through his advocate. Legal notice dated 11.10.2017 was also got sent to the OP.It is averred that the OP issued letter of possession of the plot in question on 26.10.2017 but failed to develop the site of the residential plot of the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony , physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving following directions to the OPs to pay ;
- Rs.4,60,000/- amount of 25%
- Rs.50,000/- as compensation of harassment
- Interest @18% per annum on Rs.4,60,000/- from the date of purchase i.e. 21.8.2015 till realization.
- Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant does not fall in the ambit of consumer. It is submitted that the OP always allots the plots on ‘as is where is basis’ and plot of the complainant was also allotted on similar terms. It is further submitted that as per the report of concerned office, the development work in the concerned scheme is almost completed. It is pleaded that the development of the allotted colony was to be completed within stipulated period of 18 months from the date of allotment of the plots. It is further pleaded that it has been a very sprawling project and the concerned officials have made huge efforts to complete the development works in the colony. It is further submitted that the OP has already announced the delivery of possession of the plots.
- On merits, it is pleaded that the development work in the concerned scheme has already been completed and the OP is not bound to develop the concerned properties as the development of the allotted colonies is to be undertaken by the executive engineer. The development of the allotted colony was to be completed within stipulated period of 18 months from the date of allotment of plots. It is further submitted that as per report received from the concerned office, the development work in the concerned scheme has already been completed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.Further more the OP is entitled to 10% deduction of the total amount of the price of the plot, in the event of it being surrendered. After denying all other averments the OP party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms Anuprita Johal, EO, PDA/PUDA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant made an application for allotment of residential plot in scheduled caste category to PUDA. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant was allotted plot No.189 of 256.66 sq. yards vide letter dated 21.8.2015 for the tentative price of Rs.1940350/- @ Rs.7200/- per sq. yard and the initial 25% amount of Rs.460800/- has been deposited by the complainant . The ld. counsel further argued that the OP has to provide water supply, sewerage piping, construction of roads, electric polls, construction of parks and to provide other basic amenities and to hand over the possession of the plot after completion of development work within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP failed to fulfill its promise . The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant is ready to pay the pending amount without interest and penalty, if any. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant got served legal notice dated 11.10.2017 upon the OP.The ld. counsel further argued that letter of possession of plot was issued on 26.10.2017 but the OP has not developed the site of the residential plot in question, so the complaint be allowed. The ld. counsel has also relied upon the citations Raj Rani Vs. PUDA, decided by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh on 13.6.2019, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Vs. Darshana Devi 2017(2) C.P.R.153, Usha Rani Vs. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority CCNo.420 of 2018 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that as per the report development work in the concerned scheme is almost complete and OP was not bound to complete the develop the concerned property. The ld. counsel further argued that the development work was to be completed within 18 months from the date of allotment of plot. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no fault of PUDA when the various agencies have not completed the work. So the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case, Sh.Tirlochan Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is the allotment letter dated 21.8.2015 in which the tentative price of the plot has been mentioned as Rs.1940350/- @ Rs.7560/- per sq. yard. From this letter it is clear that Rs.460800/- has been deposited by the complainant and balance amount was Rs.1479550/-.It is mentioned at point No.6 of this letter that ‘the possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter ..’18 months means, as allotment letter was delivered on 21.8.2015 and the possession was to be given till 20.2.2017. Ex. C2 is the RTI information, Ex.C3 is the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case Ram Kishan and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, Ex.C4 is the letter dated 23.10.2017 written to the complainant by PUDA vide which the complainant was asked to take the possession of the plot, Ex.C5 is legal notice dated 11.10.2017 , Ex.C6 is postal receipt.
- So from the documents it is clear that the development work was not completed within 18 months as per allotment letter,Ex.C1. It is only on 23.10.2017 when the OP offered the complainant to take the possession, vide Ex.C4.
- So from the documents produced by the complainant, the PUDA has not completed the work within 18 months or handed over the possession to the complainant .
- On behalf of OP Anuprita Johal has tendered affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written statement,Ex.OP1 is letter with regard to development of work in which it is stated that the work of colony shall be completed till 15.9.2017,Ex.OP2 is letter dated 18.10.2017 vide which the complainant was offered to take the possession within 30 days.
- Similar matter came before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab Chandigarh in the case of Raj Rani Vs. PUDA decided on 13.6.2019. It was regarding the same colony at Nabha and the PUDA was directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,04,000/-alongwith interest and Rs.11000/- was also granted as compensation. This judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission is fully applicable to the facts of the present case as the colony is the same.
- As per the allotment letter,Ex.C1 on the file, sent on 21.8.2015, at point 6 of this letter, it is mentioned that the possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. So as per allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered till 20.2.2017 but there is no document on the file which can show that the possession was offered to be delivered to the complainant before 20.2.2017.There are various letters on the file which show that the work was not completed even after 20.8.2017 at the spot. There is no completion certificate on the file by PUDA which can show that everything was completed at the site as promised in the allotment letter,Ex.C1 till 21.2.2017.The PUDA cannot wriggle out from its responsibility of completing the work and the amount has been claimed by the PUDA.
- In the written reply a strange thing is mentioned by the PUDA wherein it has been stated that PUDA was not bound to develop the concerned properties as the development of the allotted colonies is to be undertaken by Executive Engineer. As the amount was to be received by PUDA, so it was the responsibility of PUDA to ensure that the development work was completed by the concerned agencies.
- So it is clear that despite the fact that the complainant has deposited the initial amount of Rs.4,60,800/- as it is proved from Ex.C1 but the possession was not delivered within 18 months nor there is any certificate on the file which can show that the work of the colony is fully completed at the spot.
- So keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh in the case titled as Raj Rani Vs.PUDA (Supra), the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4,60,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of allotment letter till realization and also to pay Rs.11000/-as compensation.
- Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:4.8.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
