Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/109

Kuldip singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Gurnishant Singh

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :                109 of 2020

Date of Institution:     31.07.2020

Date of Decision :      27.09.2022

 

Kuldip Singh @ Kuldip Singh Matharu aged about 64 years son of Kartar Singh, resident of Street No. 3, Baba Farid Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, now resident of # 8600 Sunny Enclave, Sector-125, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, BDA Complex, Bhaggu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.

                     .......Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

Present:      Sh Gurnishant Singh, 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.- 109 of 2020

directions to OP to refund the amount of Rs.9,85,931/- alongwith interest and to pay the amount of Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2                                                       The brief facts of the present complaint are that  the complainant purchased plot no.537 measuring 250 square yards in PUDA Enclave, Baba Farid University Site, Faridkot. Originally plot in question was allotted in the name of one Sewa Singh vide letter no.2196 dated 07.05.2012 and complainant purchased the same from said Sewa Singh and got transferred the same in his name vide allotment letter no 7011 dated 22.07.2013 and completed all requisite formalities and uptil now, complainant paid Rs.9,85,931/-to  OP. As per letter of intent, OPs 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 was required 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 deliver the possession of plot in dispute to him and even despite repeated requests, there is no development work at the site. Complainant purchased the plot in question for residential purpose but due to failure in

 

cc no.- 109 of 2020

providing requisite services by OP, complainant has to suffer great harassment. Allotment of plot was done in 2012 but till now, OP neither provided basic 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. Complainant made several requests to OP to refund the amount of Rs.9,85,931/-deposited by complainant towards price of plot, 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 complaint.

4                                                     OP appeared in Forum through Counsel  after being served 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

 

cc no.- 109 of 2020

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 admitted that originally plot in question was allotted to Sewa Singh and thereafter, vide letter no.7011 dated 22.07.2013, said plot was allotted to complainant. It is denied that complainant completed all terms and conditions for said plot as on 22.03.2018, amount of Rs.5,68,750/-was found outstanding towards complainant and vide letter dated 22.03.2018, he was asked to deposit the same, but he did not deposit the remaining amount. Complainant was also informed about completion of development work at the spot and regarding delivery of possession of said plot. Denying all the allegations of complainant, it is averred that development work of said place was complete and site was ready for delivery of possession to allottees. It is further asserted that development work has already been completed. It is totally denied that they did not carry any development work at the site. All the other allegations of complainant are denied 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.

5                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence  affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, Re-allotment letter issued by Punjab Urban

cc no.- 109 of 2020

Planning and Development Authority, Bathinda regarding allotment of residential plot no.537 measuring 250 square yards under General Category in PUDA Enclave, (Baba Farid University Site), Faridkot in the name of  Kuldeep Singh Ex C-2, copy of letter no.2196 dated 07.05.2012 showing allotment in the name of Sewa Singh Ex C-3, copy of receipts regarding payment to OP from Ex C-4 to Ex C-12, document Ex C-13 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Kaur, Assistant Estate Officer, PUDA, Bathinda as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-3 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

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 earlier plot in question was allotted to one Sewa Singh, but subsequently, it was allotted to complainant and complainant got transferred the same in his own name vide letter no.7011 dated 22.07.2013 after completion of all requisite formalities and complainant paid Rs.9,85,931/- towards sale consideration of the said plot with OP but OP did not deliver the possession of the plot and also did not provide

cc no.- 109 of 2020

basic amenities at 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 also did not deliver the possession of plot in dispute to him and even despite repeated requests, 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 and also did not hand over the possession of plot to him 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 price of plot and to refund the amount of interest illegally charged alongwith interest from the date of deposit. In reply, OP admitted that complainant was the subsequent allottee for said plot vide letter dated 22.07.2013 as earlier they allotted said plot to one Sewa Singh. They further admitted that complainant deposited Rs.9,85,931/- to them on different dates but have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they carried out all development work at the site. As per OP, they gave

cc no.- 109 of 2020

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  through which they informed the allottees to take possession by visiting the office of OP on any working day, but complainant never approached them. Plea taken by OP is that there is default in making payment of remaining amount by complainant and therefore, letter dated 22.03.2018 was issued to complainant to deposit amount of Rs.5,68,750/-, but complainant failed to pay the same. OP 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, which was issued on 22.07.2013 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, but on the site there is no development work, nor any effort is made by OP to deliver the possession of plot to allottees and even plea taken by OP that they have already carried out development work

cc no.- 109 of 2020

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. 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 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

cc no.- 109 of 2020

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 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

cc no.- 109 of 2020

and energy in the courts for years. 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. Moreover, all the allottees have to be treated without any discrimination, because every citizen of this country before Government functionaries is equal before it.

11                         There is no dispute regarding allotment of plot in question and even there is no denial of the fact that complainant has deposited Rs.9,85,931/- as sale consideration towards the costs of plot, 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 showing the

cc no.- 109 of 2020

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, in these circumstances, complainant is entitled for refund of entire amount deposited by him to OP alongwith interest. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.9,85,931/- to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per anum from date of deposit of payment till the date of realization of refund of the amount. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2000/- for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days 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 : 27.09.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

 Member                         Member