DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 78
Date of Institution: 08.05.2018
Date of Decision : 08.05.2019
- Dharam Pal Ram S/o Lachman Ram R/o Village Chahal Tehsil and District Faridkot.
- Gurmeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh R/o Bir Bholuwala Tehsil and District Faridkot.
- Gurpreet Singh S/o Jaswant Singh R/o H. No.B-11-752/5, Ward No.12, St. No.9-R, Dogar Basti, Faridkot.
.......Complainants
Versus
The Estate Officer , Punjab Urban Development Authority, PUDA Complex, Bathinda.
....OP
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh. Jatinder Marria, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh. Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to refund Rs.3,55,500/- to the complainants as price of plot along with interest and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that OP demanded applications for allotment of plot in SDE Residence, Talwandi Road, Faridkot in the year 2013 and published advertisement in this regard. The complainant applied for allotment of plot and a plot no.10 measuring 150 Sq Yards was allotted to the complainants. The complainants deposited Rs.1,41,500/- as 10% cost of the plot vide receipt dated 14.03.2013. The OPs issued letter of allotment dated 11.04.2013 and asked to deposit 15% of price of the plot which was deposited by complainant vide DD Dated 10.05.2013 vide receipt dated 14.05.2013. At the time of allotment the OPs assured that they will provide all facilities 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 deliver the possession of plot in dispute to him and even despite repeated requests, there is no demarcation 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. The OPs has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment. The complainants seek information from the OPs under RTI Act but OPs has not replied the same and not given the required information to complainants which caused deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for non providing the above said facilities to complainants as assured by the OPs. The complainant has also served legal notice dated 06.03.2018 but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has great loss to them for which they have prayed for compensation along with main relief. Hence, the present complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 09.05.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 On receipt of notice, OP appeared in Forum 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 Arbitrator, Chief Administrator PUDA 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. The complainants have not come into Forum with clean hands and concealed true and material facts, as they are not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainants are stopped for filing the present complaint their own act and conduct. On merits, OP admitted that PUDA invited applications for sale of plots in SDE Residence Faridkot. It is also pleaded that complainants were the highest bidders of Plot No.10/SDE Residence, measuring 150 Sq yards @ 9400/- per Sq yards and the complainants deposited Rs.1,41,000/- as 10% of cost of plot and also deposited 15% of the price of the plot to the tune of Rs.2,14,500/- , subject to confirmation to the Chief Administrator , PUDA, Bathinda. It is denied that PUDA ever assured to complainant that allotment letter will be issued to the complainant within 7 days after the deposit of the money. Rather the terms and conditions have been mentioned in the allotment letter governed to both the parties. The facilities like road,light, sewerage etc is already provided at site. The PUDA issued allotment letter dated 11.01.2017 to complainant after confirmation of auction by the Chief Administrator PUDA and delivered the possession of the plot but the complainants failed to deposit the remaining price of the plot as per terms and conditions of letter of allotment. It is wrong that the complainants ever suffered any mental tension, harassment, financial loss due to wrong Act and conduct of the PUDA. It is wrong that PUDA has violated any terms and conditions of the allotment or auction. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP, the allotment letter has already been issued by the PUDA and development work is already completed at the spot. It is wrong that complainants ever served any legal notice. They denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that 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 and documents Ex C-2 & C-9 and then, closed the evidence.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh as Ex OP-1 and document as Ex OP-2 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 deposited Rs.3,55,500/- towards sale consideration of the said plot with OP on different dates against duly issued receipts but OP did not deliver the possession of the plot and also did not provide basic amenities on the site. 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 also did not deliver the possession of plot in dispute to him . 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 basis facilities at the site in question nor started any development work and also did not hand over the possession of plot purchased by complainant from them to him within prescribed time, which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid by him as price of plot along with interest. OP are liable to deliver the possession of plot or to refund the amount. In reply, OP have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant purchased the plot in question for the purpose of speculation and to make easy money. It is totally denied that they did not carry development work at the site. The development work was complete and site was ready for delivery of possession to allottees and for this purpose, OP published a public notice in 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 and 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 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 OPs, the possession of plot was to be delivered to complainant within 18 months from the date of letter of allotment, but on the site there is no development work, nor any effort is made by Ops to deliver the possession of plot to allottees and even plea taken by OP that they have already delivered the possession of land in dispute and to this effect they have an advertisement in newspaper is totally wrong. The OP have never issued any letter or notice to complainant asking him to take actual possession at 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 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 as 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 int he 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.
We have thoroughly gone the file and evidence and also case law produced by the complainant. It is admitted case of the parties is that complainant was allotted a plot by OPs and he paid Rs.3,55,500/- price of the plot to the OPs but OPs fail to start development work on the site and to give possession of the plot. As per the allotment letter, they have to deliver the possession of the plot after completion of entire development work within one month of the allotment letter but the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the plots after completing the development work within stipulated period. The Ops are not entitled to retain the money paid by the complainant to them as price of the plot. Moreover till today the Ops are not in the position to give assurance that when they would complete the development work on the site and deliver the possession of the plot after it.
10 From the careful perusal of record, 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 instalments out of sale consideration towards the costs of plot. In the light of aforementioned judgment and evidence and facts produced by parties, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not handing over the possession of plot in question to complainant and have also not completed the development work at site. Moreover, OP have not produced on record any document or letter showing the fact that they ever informed complainant to take possession of plot in question. On the contrary, complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings, authenticity of which cannot be ignored. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.3,55,500/- along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of payment till realization. They are further ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The Ops are directed to comply with the orders within one month from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 08.05.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
