DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/169
Daljit Singh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PUDA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. A.K.SHARMA 2. Surinder Mittal
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Daljit Singh
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. PUDA
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Minakshi Anand
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
of the plot from Estate Officer PUDA, Jalandhar
within 60 days of the date of issue of allotment
letter. The site shall be offered on as is where is basis
and the allottee shall not claim any rebate
on any ground whatsoever. The authority will
not be responsible for levelling uneven site.
"11. You shall have to complete the building
within three years from the date of issue
of the letter after getting the plans of the proposed
building approved from the Estate Officer. In case of
non-construction of the plot, on your own request,
you may be allowed extension in time for construction
of the building on the payment of extension fee as
determined by PUDA from time to time.
In case, no request is received within 30 days
on the expiry of prescribed period, the Estate Officer
shall initiate proceedings for resumption of plot
as per the provisions of Punjab Urban
Planning and Development Authority Act, 1995
and Rules framed thereunder.
8. From the perusal of these terms and conditions and also from undertaking/indemnity bonds from the complainants/transferees, it is evident that PUDA reserved its right to claim the dues from the transferee of the plot even if attributable to the original allottee prior to the reallotment of the plots to the complainants. The question of entitlement of the transferee of the plot to the refund of interest amount charged uptil June 2002 has been, squarely dealt with and adjudicated in para No.2 of judgment in a similar case titled as Gurinder Kaur vs. PUDA first appeal No.1421 of 2005 dated
9/3/ 2006 Ex.C21 by our Honble State Commission with its pertinent observations interalia as under : -
It is not disputed before us that while allowing
the transfer PUDA had taken an undertaking
from the complainants that in case any amount is
found against the plot sought to be transferred, the
complainants and transferees would be liable to
pay even if it is foundthat the amount was
prior to the transfer of the plot in the name of the
complainants. PUDA cannot take a stand that
heads I win tails you loss. If PUDA has the right
to claim any amount which is due against the
plot even prior to the date of transfer there may be
some amount which may be found due from
the PUDA to the original allottee. The right to claim
that would automatically stand transferred to
the transferee after the transfer is allowed by the
PUDA. The transferee steps into the shoes of the
original allottee. There does not have to be anything
in writing in that regard between the transfer and
transferee. In case PUDA pays the amount which may be
due to the original allottee it will absolve itself and
the original allottee cannot claim that amount from
the PUDA. If at all he may recover the same from
the transferee. Consequently we hold that District
Forum was not correct in its approach when it
held that the transferee has no right to claim
the refund of the amount of interest on the instafments
paid prior to 12.6.2002 by Shri Baldev Singh Bains.
9. Therefore, following the ratio of above cited cases of Honble State Commission we are of the considered opinin that complainant/ transferee is entitled to the interest amount on the instalments paid upto June 2002 whether paid by the original allottee or by the transferee.
10. Apropos the basic amenities in the Urban Estate under the scheme , there is no doubt allegation in para-11 of the complaint that sewerage work is still hanging fire as its out-let discharge drain connecting with the main municipal sewerage drain has not been constructed so far. The water including refuge and water of bathrooms and toilets remain moving inside the sewerage pipes and main holes. The bathrooms and toilets are stinking and life of inmates have become miserable and health hazard. The other major problem is the entrance from main Jalandhar road into Urban Estate has not so far been constructed. There is only single road of 11 feet which in
zig-zag way exists. Trucks and Tractor Trolleys with the material cannot pass through this entry. . There is still no provision for disposal of rain water which remains resting in front of houses of the inhabitants . The main entrance road during rainy season becomes water logged and same cannot be used to gain access into the Urban Estate colony. The complainants and others through their Welfare Society have been protesting and requesting the high-ups to complete the basic amenities. Opposite party PUDA produced in evidence application Ex.R19 dated 11/10/2006 for sanction of building plan subject to the conditions mentioned therein and partial construction of the building vide Ex.R20 and partial occupation Ex.R21. Opposite party, however controverted the allegations of complainants and further pleaded that matter regarding providing basic amenities in the Urban Estate under the Scheme is still pending before the HOn'ble National Commission. It is further pleaded that sewerage facility has already been provided. If the sewerage work has not been properly working, then it would not have been possible for the occupants of those houses to remain a silent spectator. It is, however denied that there is only one road provided for going in the Urban Estate. It is also denied that trucks and trolleys with materials cannot pass through the entrance to Urban Estate. Other development activities for the benefits of public are in continued process which cannot be expected to be done in days or months. . The PUDA colony is a Govt. approved colony and providing basic amenities like electricity, , sewerage, water roads, parks specification of roads etc. is very well known to the PUDA colony and as such raising this objection is of no meaning for the purpose of getting any claim in the present complaint. However, the opposite party has not placed any official record pertaining to the completion of development works like sewerage, out-lets of drainage of water and roads. The stand of the opposite party that these issues are pending adjudication before Hon'ble National Commission does not survive in the light of decision dated 4/10/2007 of NCDRC in revision petition No. 3 to 30 and in case PUDA vs. Rohit Kumar & Ors. and another case PUDA vs. Sunder Lal Gupta against order dated 10/10/2005 in appeal No.249/2005 of Hon'ble Punjab State Commission wherein compensation was awarded on account of escalation of prices on account of non development works. We, therefore, hold that opposite party has failed miserably to provide basic amenities and completion thereof i.e. sewerage, water drainage outlet facility and roads to the inhabitants for which they have been put into miserable plight.
11. The penultimate contention of learned counsel for opposite party to oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to adjudicate the complaint under the Arbitration Clause under the terms of the allotment letter is not tenable in the light of Sectin 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which clearly provides that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being.
In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we accept the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund interest amount paid upto June 2002 to the complainants with interest @ 10% p.a. thereon till payment as per record of instalments maintained by tthe PUDA and compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency in service for causing mental agony and physical harassment uptil now with further direction to the opposite party to complete the basic amenities i.e. sewerage, water drainage outlet facility and roads within a period of six months from the receipt of copy of this order besides cost of litigation of Rs.2000/-.
Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )
10.6.2008 Member President.
