Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/124

Manmeet Singh Bindra - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Gursahib Singh Brar

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :          124 of 2020

Date of Institution:       17.08.2020

Date of Decision :        27.09.2022

Manmeet Singh Bindra, aged about 44 years son of Avtar Singh Bindra r/o 124/115, Shiv Nagar, Sodal Road, Jallandhar, Tehsil and District  Jallandhar.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer.
2. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali through its Chief Administrator.

  ....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Gur Sahib Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER      

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

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

cc no.-124 of 2020

directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4,86,300/-alongwith interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainants 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 general category and paid Rs.1,80,300/-as earnest money. As per scheme of OPs, the colony was to be developed within 2 years 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. Draw of lots held and complainant was declared as successful bidder and letter of intent dated 03.01.2014 was issued to him vide which complainant was intimated that plot measuring 200 square yards was allotted to him and he was directed to pay Rs.2,70,000/-as 15% of price of plot and Rs.36,000/-as 2% cost of plot as the Punjab State Cancer and Drugs Addiction Treatment Infrastructure Fund within 30 days from the issuance of letter of intent. On receiving the same, complainant deposited Rs.3,06,000/-with Ops through demand draft. Complainant had already deposited earnest money

cc no.-124 of 2020

of Rs.1,80,300/-with OPs as 10% of entire amount at the time of applying for said plot. Ops assured complainant that construction at site would start soon. Despite completion of more than six-seven years from the date of issuance of letter of intent, OPs have neither started the construction work at site nor have delivered the possession of plot to complainant. Complainant has made several requests to Ops to refund the amount of plot deposited by him with OPs to him, but they keep putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant made many requests to OP to either deliver the possession or to refund the remaining amount with interest, but they did not pay any heed to listen to his requests. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great loss to him for which he has prayed for compensation alongwith main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25.08.2020, 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 condition no. 27 of terms and conditions of allotment letter that in case of any dispute regarding allocation, it shall be referred to sole Arbitrator/Chief Administrator PUDA,

cc no.-124 of 2020

Mohali and award passed by that authority shall be final and binding upon the parties. 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 complainant deposited 25% towards the price of the plot to them as alleged, but thereafter, he failed to deposit the remaining installments and even did not pay any single penny towards due amount and he has breached the terms and conditions of the letter of intent. They refused that they ever assured him to deliver the possession of the plot within two years 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 asserted that complainant neither visited the office of Ops to obtain possession of plot or for refund of his amount. 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. Moreover, complainant never approached them regarding refund of amount paid by him and therefore in the absence of any such request by complainant, refund of earnest money is not payable. 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.

cc no.-124 of 2020

Ops further alleged that complainant himself was negligent in depositing remaining amount of installments with them and he 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 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Babandeep Singh Walia as Ex OP-1 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                       Ld Counsel for complainant has argued that OPs launched a scheme 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 general category and paid Rs.1,80,300/-as earnest money. As per scheme of OPs, the colony was to be developed within 2 years and the possession of plot was to be delivered after

 

cc no.-124 of 2020

completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment. Draw of lots held on 30.08.2013 and vide letter dated 3.01.2014, complainant was intimated that plot measuring 200 square yards is allotted to him and he was directed to pay Rs.2,70,000/-as 15% of price of plot and Rs.36,000/-as 2% cost of plot as the Punjab State Cancer and Drugs Addiction Treatment Infrastructure Fund within 30 days from the issuance of letter of intent. On receiving the same, complainant deposited Rs.3,06,000/-with Ops through demand draft and asked about completion of work at site. Ops assured complainant that construction at site would start soon. Despite completion of 2 years from the date of issuance of letter of intent, OPs have neither started the construction work at site nor have delivered the possession of plot to complainant. Complainant made many requests to OP to either deliver the possession or to refund the remaining amount with interest, but they did not hear his requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith main relief and compensation and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 6.

8                                     Ld Counsel for OPs argued that all the allegations leveled by complainant on OPs are wrong and incorrect and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, but it is admitted by OPs that they launched a scheme for development of colony at Sugar Mill Site and a plot of

cc no.-124 of 2020

200 square yards was allotted to complainant and complainant deposited Rs.4,86,300/-towards the price of the plot to them as alleged, but they refused that they ever assured him to deliver the possession of the plot within two years after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier. As per Ops, after payment of 25% of plot amount, complainant himself failed to make payment of remaining amount towards the price of plot in question. He was negligent in paying the remaining amount. Moreover, he never approached them for obtaining refund of his deposited amount. It is also denied that they are not the owners of property in dispute. It is further averred that 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. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and they have prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

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

cc no.-124 of 2020

10                                             The case of the complainant is that OPs launched a scheme for development of residential colony at Sugar Mill site, Faridkot and complainant applied for a plot of 200 square yards. The OPs duly issued a letter of intent to him and as per demand of OPs, he deposited Rs.1,80,300/-as  Earnest Money and Rs 2,70,000/- as 15% of value of the plot besides Rs.36,000/- as Cancer Relief Fund i.e total of Rs.4,86,300/-to the OPs. As per scheme, the possession of the 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, whichever is earlier. The allotment letter was issued to him on 3.01.2014 and as per assurance of OPs, the possession of plot was to be delivered to complainant atleast by 2.07.2015 i.e 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 allottee. In their reply, OPs admitted that they launched a scheme for development of colony and a plot of 200 square yards was allotted to complainant and complainant deposited Rs.4,86,300/- towards the price of the plot to them as alleged, but they refused that they ever assured him to deliver the possession of the plot within two years after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier.

 

cc no.-124 of 2020

11                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that as per conditions of said scheme, the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier.                                  This term is clearly mentioned on the allotment letter at Sr No. 14. Copy of the letter is Ex C-2. Receipt Ex C-3 for deposit of Rs.3,06,000/-by complainant with Opposite Parties proves that there was a contract between complainant and OPs. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Opposite Parties cannot deny their liability to deliver possession of plot within time. If they  do  not deliver  possession  to allottee  in  time,  then  this  is a  deficiency  and trade mal  practice on their part. The complainant argued that as per Revenue Record, the land in question is not in ownership of Opposite Parties.  The allottees are entitled to get refund of the money deposited by them towards sale consideration of plot alongwith interest and compensation. He has put reliance on citation 2012 (2) CPC524 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–

 

cc no.-124 of 2020

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 lac is   also    allowed    to     petitioner     in     addition    to   relief   already    granted   by    District   Forum  –  Interest   at   the   rate  of  12 %  on   deposited amount  also allowed.  It is argued that in view of it,  the  complainant is entitled to get refund of money deposited by him alongwith interest  and  compensation.

 12                                     As complainant has made last payment to OPs on 31.01.2014 and letter of intent was issued on 3.01.2014 i.e more than two years ago from the filing of complaint and thus, on the point of limitation, ld counsel for complainant has placed reliance on citation 2015 (3) Consumer Law Today, 16 titled as Satish Kumar Pandey & anr Vs M/s Unitech Ltd wherein our Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed as Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 (1) (g),  2 (1) (o) & 24 A - Housing Construction –Limitation – Delay in construction and possession by the builder – Plea of OP that since the last date stipulated in the buyers agreement for giving possession of the flat to them expired more than two years ago the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24 – A – Held - it is by now settled legal

cc no.-124 of 2020

proposition that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong, it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to him the buyers can always approach a Consumer Forum-it is only when the seller flatly refuses to give possession that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act would began to run-In that case the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the seller refuses to deliver possession to the buyer.

13                                        It is further argued that the price of land in dispute is Rs.18,00,000/-and complainant has made payment of Rs.4,86,300/-and thus, complainant has not made the entire payment of land, therefore, ld counsel for complainant has relied upon case law cited as 2015 (3) Consumer Law Today, 48 titled as EMAAR MGF Land Ltd and anr Vs Dilshad Gill, wherein our Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has observed that “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (i) (g)- Housing Construction–Delayin possession by appellant/Builder- Complainant/respondent defaulted in payment- Held- Appellants themselves have violated the material conditions with regard to handing over of the possession, now, it does not lie in their mouth to demand further payment from the respondent-The respondent was fully justified in not making the payment, when appellants failed to complete the construction and handover the possession, within the agreed period. Hon’ble National

cc no.-124 of 2020

Commission decided that if OPs have failed to hand over the possession in time, then, they cannot demand further payment from the complainant. 

14                                             After  careful  perusal of the record and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, we have  come to the conclusion that as per  terms and  conditions of the scheme, which are clearly mentioned in the Letter of Intent Ex C-2, OPs have to deliver the possession of  plot after  development within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter   of  allotment, whichever is earlier, but OPs  have  failed  to  comply  with  this condition and have not  started  the work  at  site. Rather, from the perusal of Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 i.e copy of letter of intent and receipt respectively, it is transpired that OPs have received the amount of Rs.4,86,300/-from complainant, but as per their agreement, they have neither delivered the possession of plot to complainant nor developed the colony as per their promise. In these  circumstances, we  are  fully  convinced with  the  arguments  advanced  by ld counsel for  complainant and  case  law  produced  by  him. Complainant has fully succeeded in proving his case and is entitled   for refund of money deposited by him as price of plot. Ops are liable for deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4,86,300/- the amount deposited by complainant with them as price of the plot alongwith interest at the rate of 6 % per anum from the date of its payment

cc no.-124 of 2020

by complainant to them till its final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs 2,000/-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 as per Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in Commission :

  Dated: 27.09.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)                 (Param Pal Kaur)

  Member                                   Member