Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/66

Mohinder Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

01 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       66

Date of Institution:   01.03.2016

Date of Decision :     01.07.2016

 

Mohinder Paul aged 47 years s/o Khushi Ram r/o Street No. 2, Devi Wala Road, Basant Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.     

                                                                       .......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.

                        ....Opposite parties (Ops)

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

    

   Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                     Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                     

    (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 deposited by him with interest and to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses.

     2                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OPs launched a scheme for development of colony at Sugar Mill Site, Faridkot as PUDA Enclave and as per scheme, plots were to be allotted by way of draw of lots. Said scheme started on 3.06.2013 and closed on 2.07.2013. Vide application no. 0113, Complainant applied for 200 square yards plot in said scheme and paid Rs. 1,80,000/-on 2.07.2013 as 10% of price of plot. OPs assured complainant that colony would be developed within 2 years and possession of plot was to be delivered after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. Draw of lots was held and vide allotment letter no PUDA-EO/20130035 dt 2.01.2014, complainant was intimated that plot measuring 200 square yards was allotted to him and he was asked to deposit Rs 2,70,000/-as 15% of price of plot and Rs.36,000/-as 2% more cost of the plot within 30 days from the date of letter. On receiving the same, complainant deposited Rs. 3,06,000/- i.e (Rs.2,70,000/-as 15% of price of plot and Rs.36,000/-as 2% more cost of the plot)within time as demanded by Ops and complainant asked about the starting of work at site and he was assured that work would start within few months. After six months, when construction work did not begin, complainant asked OP-1 about this fact, who assured that work at site would start within next six months. But even after expiry of said months, work at site did not start. Complainant again approached Op-1 with request to start the work at site, but every time they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, in December, 2015, complainant visited OP-1 with a request to refund his entire amount as he is residing in a rented house and he wants to construct his own house, but OP-1 did not listen his request. Complainant made many requests to OP-2, but all in vain.  After that, it came to the notice of complainant that there is some dispute regarding the land in question and thus, there are no chances of starting of work in near future. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused harassment and financial loss to complainant for which he is entitled 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 2.03.2016, 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 there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. However, on merits OPs admitted that plot in question was allotted to complainant and allegations regarding payment made by complainant are also admitted. It is further asserted that there is no delay in the development of colony and OPs never assured complainant that construction work would start within six months. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special 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 Gurjant Singh 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 per scheme, plots were to be allotted by way of draw of lots. Complainant applied for plot measuring 200 square yards and deposited Rs.1,80,000/- as 10% of price of plot on 2.07.2013. As per scheme, the colony was to be developed within two years and possession was to be delivered after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier by the OPs. The draw of lots was held and complainant succeeded in it. OPs intimated regarding it by letter dt  2.01.2014 and demanded payment of Rs.2,70,000/- as 15% price of the plot and Rs.36,000/- as 2% more cost of plot within 30 days and then, amount of Rs.3,06,000/- was deposited by complainant within specified period. At the time of deposit of this amount, complainant asked about starting of work at site, who told him that work would start within few months, but no work was started at site. Complainant again asked about it from OPs, who assured complainant that work would start very soon but no development work started at site by OPs till today. Complainant purchased the said plot for his own residential purpose and as per scheme, the possession of the plot was to be given within two years after completion of development work of colony or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but the OPs did not make any effort to start the development work at site or delivered possession to allottees even the machinery of the Sugar Mill is still lying at the site. In December 2015, complainant approached OPs and asked about construction work, but they put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and did not listen his genuine request. It is  submitted that no development work ever started on the site till today.  Complainant again visited the office of OPs and requested them to start the development work or to refund the entire amount deposited by him towards the price of plot alongwith interest, but they did not turn up. The complainant purchased the said plot for his residential purpose and at present he is residing in a rented house. By not starting construction work at site and by non delivery of the possession of plot in time by OPs, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony and financial loss. These acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. They are misleading the consumers and got deposited heavy amount from them and are earning huge profit from that amount and they are not refunding the amount deposited by the consumers. Ld counsel for complainant has prayed that OPs may be directed to start development work at the site and to deliver the possession of plot immediately or to refund the entire amount deposited by him towards the price of plot with interest alongwith compensation to complainant.

8                                               Ld Counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. However, it is admitted that OPs launched a scheme for the development of residential colony at the Sugar Mill site, Faridkot and complainant applied for allotment of plot under this scheme. He was allotted plot of 200 square yards and letter of intent was issued to him. It is further admitted that complainant deposited the price of plot but it is denied altogether if OPs ever assured complainant for development of colony within two years or for possession of plot after completion of development work at site within eighteen months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier. It is further asserted that complainant did not suffer any harassment, inconvenience and financial loss due to non development of colony by the ops. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and they 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.

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. He was allotted a plot. The OPs duly issued a letter of intent to him as per demand of OPs, he deposited Rs 1,80,000/-on 2.07.2013 as 10% of value of the plot  and Rs.2,70,000/- as 15% price of the plot and Rs.36,000/- as 2% more cost of plot in January 2014. 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 2.01.2014 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 amount towards the price of the plot to them as alleged by him, 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. Ld Counsel for Ops further argued that there is no delay in the development of colony and also there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11                                        Ld Counsel for complainant argued that he purchased the plot in dispute for his residence and as per 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. Therefore, in these circumstances, the OPs 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. Complainant 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 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 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.     He   argued     that  in  view   of   it,  the  complainant is entitled to refund of money deposited by him alongwith interest   and   compensation.

12                                   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   2   years   or  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   not  started  the   work   on   site. Ld Counsel for complainant further argued that there is dispute regarding the ownership of land where the alleged project was to be developed and this land is not in ownership of OPs. In his support, he has produced copy of revenue record Ex C-6. From the perusal of revenue record, it comes to our notice that land in dispute is not in ownership of OPs and ownership of this land is transferred from the name of Ops to the name of Co-operative Department of Punjab Government. 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 whole amount deposited by complainant with them as price of the plot alongwith interest at the rate of 12 % per anum from the date of its payment by complainant to them till its final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs 20,000/-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: 01.07.2016        

 

     Member              Member                President                  (Parampal Kaur)      (P Singla)                (Ajit Aggarwal)