Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/129

Angrej Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar

03 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :              129 of 2020

Date of Institution:   07.09.2020

Date of Decision :     03.12.2021

 

Angrej Kaur, aged about 58 years, wife of Jaswant Singh r/o Park Avenue, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Bhaggu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer.

                     .......Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashok Kumar, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking

cc no.-129 of 2020

directions to OP to refund the interest charged by OP on amount of Rs.12,16,500/- and to pay the amount of Rs.5 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                                       The brief facts of the present complaint are that  initially plot no.77 was allotted in the name of Pawan Kumar in 2012 and in January, 2019, complainant purchased the said plot from its original allottee and got transferred the same in heris name and till 28.08.2020, she deposited Rs.12,15,610/-with OP as total price of plot and nothing is due towards complainant. As per letter of intent, OP promised to hand over the possession of plot in dispute within period of 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter after completion of development work and as per terms and conditions of allotment OP were to provide all the amenities like water supply, sewerage connections, roads, drainage, street lights etc., but they failed to provide all these basic amenities to complainant and also did not carry development work and even despite repeated requests. There is only a boundary wall, which is also broken at various places and entire enclave is lying as an abandoned area. Complainant purchased the plot in question for residential purpose but due to failure in providing requisite services by OP, complainant has to suffer great harassment. OP neither

cc no.-129 of 2020

provided basic facilities at the site in question nor started any development work within prescribed time, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made several requests to OP to start the development work, but OP did not pay any heed to listen to his request. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and has great loss to him for which he has prayed for compensation alongwith main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                      The complaint was admitted after hearing and notice was issued to Opposite Party to appear in person or through representative to file reply to the complainant.

4                                         On receipt of notice, OP appeared in the Commission through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that as per terms and conditions of allotment letter, any dispute or difference should have been referred to sole Arbitration of Chief Administrator PUDA, Mohali and award passed by him shall be binding on parties. Moreover, complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that development work has already been completed and answering OP has delivered possession of the plot. It is totally denied that they did not carry any development work at the site. OP

cc no.-129 of 2020

published a public notice in Ajit newspaper dated 29.11.2017 vide which they informed the allottees that development work of PUDA Enclave has been completed and allottees can take possession of their respective plots within 10 days of said notification failing which it would be presumed that the possession of same stands delivered to the allottee, but complainant never approached the answering OP regarding development at the site, rather filed false complaint. It is admitted by Op that complainant deposited the instalments but they denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that if complainant wants to obtain refund of his amount deposited by her, she should file an application before competent authority, but complainant never opted this option. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1,  document showing transfer of plot from the name of original allottee Pawan Kumar to the name of complainant  Ex C-2, folio of property ledger of BDA dated 28.08.2020 that proves the fact that complainant deposited Rs.12,15,610/-with OP Ex C-3, copy of order dated 03.02.2020 passed by this Forum in cc no.228 of 2019 as Ex C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

 

cc no.-129 of 2020

6                                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Babandeep Singh, Estate Officer, PUDA, Bathinda as Ex OP-1, notice dated 29.11.2017 as Ex OP-2 and notice dated 11.12.2014 as Ex OP-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                               We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

8                                              The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased plot in question as subsequent transferee in PUDA Enclave, Baba Farid University, Faridkot. Plot in question was earlier allotted to one Pawan Kumar, who sold the said plot to complainant and complainant got transferred the same in her name and till 13.12.2018, she deposited the consideration amount of plot to OP on different dates against duly issued receipts but OP neither carried out the development work nor provided the basic amenities on the site. As per letter of intent, OP promised to hand over the possession of plot within period of 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter after completion of development work and OP were to provide all the amenities like water supply, sewerage connections, roads, drainage, street lights etc., but they failed to provide all these basic amenities and even despite repeated requests,

cc no.-129 of 2020

there was no development work of plot at the site. Complainant purchased the plot in question for residential purpose but due to failure in providing requisite services by OP, complainant has to suffer great harassment. OP neither provided basic facilities at the site in question nor started any development work within prescribed time, which amounts to deficiency in service. The OP illegally and wrongly charged interest on amount deposited by him. Opposite Party is liable to refund the interest on price of plot as they failed to carry out the development work. In reply, OP admitted that they allotted plot to complainant. It is further admitted that complainant deposited Rs.12,15,610/- to them on different dates but have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they have carried out all development work at the site. As per OP, they gave notification in daily vernacular on 11.12.2014 that development work has been completed and allottees can take possession of their plots by approaching the office of OP on any working day.  OP published a public notice in newspaper dt 11.12.2014 and on 29.11.2017 in Ajit Newspaper through which they informed the allottees to take possession by visiting the office of OP on any working day, but complainant never approached them regarding development of site. It is also denied that no demarcation is done at the site. Though it is admitted by Op that complainant deposited the instalments but they denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and

cc no.-129 of 2020

incorrect and it is reiterated that  there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                      Ld Counsel for complainant further argued that as per condition no.10 of scheme, the possession of plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development work at the site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, which is earlier. As per allotment letter/ Letter of Intent and as per assurance of OP, the possession of plot was to be delivered to complainant within 18 months from the date of letter of allotment after completion of development work, but on the site there is no development work, nor any effort is made by Ops to provide basic amenities. The OP have not yet started the development work at site. They have not done any development work at site and that can be easily seen by visiting the site. Moreover, mere offer of possession without completion of development work at site is not a valid offer. Ld counsel for complainant has placed reliance on citation 2015 (2) Consumer Law Today, 39 titled as M/s Ashiana Housing Ltd Vs Yog Raj Vij, wherein our Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g) – Flat Allotment – offer of possession – Mere offer of possession when the external services are far from complete, cannot amount to fulfilment of contractual obligation undertaken by the builder – Unless the external development including common

cc no.-129 of 2020

basic amenities is ready for use, a buyer cannot conveniently make use of the flat allotted to him – Revision Petition dismissed. The ld counsel for complainant further argued that he is entitled for the interest on payment made by him to OP on price of plot for the delayed period. He has put reliance on citation 2012 (2) CPC 524 titled as Barid B Bhattacharya Vs DCM Ltd & Ors decided by Hon’ble National Commission, where it is observed that Petitioner/complainant was allotted a space in the project after receiving Rs.5,10,300/-for the same – As there was undue delay in commencement of project, refund of deposited amount was claimed by the petitioner with compensation – District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.5,10,700/-with compensation of Rs.2 lacs and cost of Rs.30,000/-. State Commission enhanced the cost of Rs.10,000/- in addition to claim allowed by Fora – Petitioner approached in revision for further claim – Held, as petitioner was deprived of hard earned money due to negligence of respondent, a sum of Rs. 1 lacs is also allowed to petitioner in addition to relief already granted by District Forum- Interest at the rate of 12 % on deposited amount was allowed.

10                                            Ld counsel for complainant has further placed reliance on the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by our Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No.4108 of 2016 titled as Ram Kishan and another Vs State of Haryana and others wherein Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana

cc no.-129 of 2020

High Court held that it is observed that this court is flooded with huge litigation of such like disputes, where allotments of plots/booth sites, commercial sites, have been made the respective Governments of the State of Punjab and Haryana, including their Corporations; government undertakings, like HUDA and PUDA, without completing the development works and providing all basic amenities and facilities. Such action of the Government is not only a disadvantage to the Government itself, but also to the public at large, who has to indulge in litigation and spend valuable time of their lives, hard earned money and energy in the courts for years. The time has now come that such type of actions of the Government to allot sites without making the same litigation free and without completing the development works and proving all  basic amenities and facilities, have to be curbed down, because such actions lead to multifarious litigation wasting precious time and energy of the court, which can be utilized in disposal of some genuine litigation. Such casual approach of the concerned officers has to be dealt with severely. Therefore, Chief Secretaries for the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as Adviser to Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, are hereby directed to ensure that no government site or site through any government agency shall be offered by way of allotment, auction or otherwise, until and unless the same is completely litigation free, i.e without any encumbrance etc., and is fully developed, provided with all basic amenities.

cc no.-129 of 2020

Moreover, all the allottees have to be treated on parity without any discrimination, because every citizen of this country before Government functionaries is equal before it.

11                                          It is observed that there is no dispute regarding allotment of plot in question and even there is no denial of the fact that complainant has deposited entire sale consideration towards the costs of plot to OP, but OP have been deficient in fulfilling their promise of completion of development work. Moreover, OP have not produced on record any document or letter from concerned departments showing provision of basic amenities at site in question. On the contrary, complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings, authenticity of which cannot be ignored. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not carrying out the development work in time and due to lack of basic amenities, complainant has been deprived of constructing the said plot. OP retained the price of plot but as per agreement, failed to carry out development work at the site within prescribed time frame, therefore, OP is liable to pay interest on amount deposited by complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the interest on amount of Rs.12,16,500/- to complainant at the rate of 4% per anum from date of lapse of period prescribed for development of site as per letter of intent till the date of realization of the

cc no.-129 of 2020

amount. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 03.12.2021

                                     (Vishav Kant Garg)            (Param Pal Kaur)

Member                              Member