DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       124

Date of Institution:   30.07.2018

Date of Decision :     05.03.2019

Gurdeep Singh  aged 57 years S/o  Ishar Singh  R/o Bazigar  Basti, Street No.3, Faridkot tehsil and Distt. Faridkot 

.......Complainant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer.      

  ....OP

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:      Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:      Sh Ashok Kumar, 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 OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant and  litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-

2                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that alleging themselves to be absolute owners of land, OPs launched a project for development of colony at sugar mill site, Faridkot as PUDA Enclave and as per scheme, the plots were to be allotted by way of draw of lots. Said scheme opened on 3.06.2013 and closed on 2.07.2013, complainant applied for residential plot measuring 200 sq yards in SC/ST category and paid Rs.1,80,000/- i.e 10% of total price of land purchased as earnest money. As per scheme of OPs, the colony was to be developed and the possession of plot was to be delivered after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment. Allotment letter was issued to complainant and he was asked to deposit 15 % of price of plot. The complainant came to know that the court cases are pending regarding ownership of site in dispute and OPs concealed this fact from the complainant and the OPs are not having ownership of site in dispute. The complainant approached the Ops and sought refund of the whole amount deposited by him along with interest and they assured they are planning to refund the amount along with interest to the plot holders. The complainant demanded the remaining amount of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest but OPs put of the complainant by saying that the amount could be refunded  after some time. The complainant visited the OPs many times but they put of the matter on one pretext or the other. Now they flatly refused to refund the remaining amount. The complainant requested to the Ops to refund Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest but OPs denied the genuine request of the complainant  which amounts to deficiency in service and  trade mal practice on their part. The complainant prayed for the refunded of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest  along with compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 01.08.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                  On receipt of notice, OPs appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that as per terms and conditions of allotment letter that in case of any dispute regarding allocation, it shall be referred to sole Arbitrator/Chief Administrator PUDA, Mohali and award passed by that authority shall be final and binding upon the parties. Further averred that no cause of action arises against answering OP. However on merits, OP have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part, but it is admitted by OPs that they launched a scheme for development of colony at Sugar Mill Site and a plot of 200 square yards was allotted to complainant and he deposited Rs.1,80,000/-being 10% towards the price of the plot to them as earnest money as alleged. It is also admitted by OP that due to failure on the part of complainant to deposit 15 % of price of plot within 30 days of issuance of letter of intent, they cancelled the letter of intent and forfeited the amount of 10% of price of plot deposited by complainant as earnest money. It is wrong that the Ops ever assured for the refund of amount already forfeited by the Ops. The complainant is not entitled for this amount.  However, it is totally refused that they ever assured him to deliver the possession of the plot after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier. It is wrong that there is any dispute regarding proprietorship of land in question and it is also denied that they are not the owners of property in dispute. There is no negligence on the part of Ops in performing their duties with regard to allotment of plots and it is also wrong that OPs are not in a position to do so. Complainant has not suffered any loss due to OPs and complainant is not entitled to recover the claim amount or damages from OPs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs 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-3 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, Estate Officer, PUDA as Ex OP-1and 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 Counsel for the Ops argued that Ops launched a scheme for development of colony at Sugar Mill Site, PUDA  and complainant was alloottee a residential plot measuring 200 Sq Yards and he paid Rs.1,80,000/-as the earnest money and vide the allotment letter, the Ops asked the complainant to deposit 15% of sale price.As per terms and conditions of the scheme the possession of the said plot handed over to the complainant within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment . Ops did not start development work at site, and retain the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by the complainant as earnest money. It is admitted by the Ops that the complainant deposited Rs.1,80,000/-  as earnest money with them but complainant fails to pay 15% price of plot on stipulating time, as such allotment was canceled and amount already deposited by him forfeited. The amount of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by him as earnest money cannot be refunded to him as it is forfeited by the Ops. The complainant argued that the Ops are not owner the site in question, the land in question is that ownership of Co-operative department  and is attached in many cases of Civil Courts when the Ops are not owner of land in question then in that case they cannot sell the land and receive the amount as sale consideration of the plot from the public. Now when the Ops are not the owner of the land in question and cannot sell the land then in that case they have no right to forfeit the amount already deposited with them as price of the plot in case of failure to deposit next installment of plot on time. Rather, they are liable to refund the amount already deposited with them along with interest and compensation to the allottees.        

9           From the aforementioned , in the light of aforesaid discussion , we are of the conclusion that Ops are not owners in land in question then they cannot sale the land in question to public by alleging that they are owners of the site and cannot deposit the amount as part payment of price. When they are not owner of the site then they can also not claiming the  balance price of from the alloottees , they also cannot forfeit the amount with the Ops. Rather, Ops are liable to refund the amount already deposited with them by the alloottees along with interest. The act of the Ops to forfeit the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by the complainant with them as earnest money for plot and not to refund this amount to the complainant amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practices on their part. Hence, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to the Ops to refund Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by the complainant as 10% price of the plot along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of payment till realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs 5,000/-as litigation expenses.   The   OPs   are   directed   to   comply   with   the  order  within   a   month   from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order,  failing  which  complainant  can initiate  proceedings  under   section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:05.03.2019

                              (Parampal Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)                                                                                      Member                                                                President