Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/25

Narinder Dhawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

15 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :                25 of 2020

Date of Institution:    28.01.2020

Date of Decision :     15.01.2024

Narinder Dhawan aged about 66 years, son of Ram Lal Dhawan, resident of B-11, House No.1058, Iqbal Ganj Chowk, Gupta Road, Ludhiana.

.......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.

(Now, u/s 35 of CPA 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President,

Sh Vishavkant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                 Sh Gurmit Saini, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                  

ORDER

(Kiranjit Kaur Arora, 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.4,86,000/-alongwith interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses.

cc-25 of 2020

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 category and paid Rs.1,80,000/- i.e 10% of total price of land purchased as earnest money on 01.07.2013 vide draft no.137437 dt 01.07.2013. 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 on 26.12.2013 and he was asked to deposit 15 % of price of plot. Thereafter, complainant deposited Rs.3,06,000/- with OPs vide Demand Draft No.137933 and 137934 dt 23.01.2014 ( i.e Rs.2,70,000/- as 15% of price of plot and Rs.36,000/-as 2% more cost of plot). As per terms and conditions of 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, but despite receiving 25% of price of plot, OPs failed to carry any development work at the site and also did not deliver the possession of plot in question as per terms of letter of intent. Complainant alongwith other plot holders approached OPs several times with request to complete the development work and to deliver the possession of plot, but all in vain as OP paid no heed to listen to their requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. Moreover, it  has come to the notice of complainant that land in question which OPs allege to be theirs, does not belong to them and same is under attachment of several departments vide different attachment orders of court

cc-25 of 2020

of law. It is submitted that land in question is already attached by Court of Ld Addl District Judge, Faridkot in favour of farmers also. OPs are fully aware that land in question is not free from incumbrances, even then, they made allotment of plots over such land. OPs have no ownership right over said property and therefore, complainant made several requests to OPs to refund the entire amount deposited by him with them on account of sale consideration of his plot with interest, but they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.  Even legal notice dated 12.04.2019 got served upon OPs by complainant through his counsel, also served no purpose. Complainant has faced great harassment and inconvenience due to this act of OPs. 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 03.02.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                  On receipt of notice, OPs appeared in the Commission 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, 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 OPs. However on merits, OPs 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

cc-25 of 2020

 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 OPs that complainant deposited Rs.2,70,000/- as 15 % of price of plot within 30 days of issuance of letter of intent against receipt dated 23.01.2014. 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 to 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 Babandeep Singh Walia, PCS Estate Officer, PUDA as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to 8 and 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 OPs launched a scheme for development of residential colony at Sugar Mill site, Faridkot and

cc-25 of 2020

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.1,80,000/-as  Earnest Money. Thereafter, he was asked to deposit 15 % of price of plot and complying with the terms and conditions of the letter of intent, complainant deposited Rs.3,06,000/-with OPs vide receipt dated 23.01.2014. As per terms and conditions of 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, but despite receiving 25% of price of plot, OP failed to carry any development work at the site and also did not deliver the possession of plot in question to complainant as per terms of letter of intent. Complainant approached OPs several times with request to complete the development work and to deliver the possession of plot, but all in vain as OPs paid no heed to listen to their requests. Moreover, it is brought to the notice of this Commission that land in question is not free from incumbrances and is under attachment of several departments vide different attachment orders of court of law and OP have no ownership right over said property. Repeated requests made by complainant before OPs for refund of his amount, bore no fruit. All this caused great harassment and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for redressing his grievance by accepting the present complaint. On the other hand,  there is no denial on the part of OPs that they launched said scheme and it is also admitted that a plot of 200 square yards was allotted to complainant and he was asked to deposit 15 % of price of plot within prescribed period. There is no refusal that he deposited Rs.4,86,000/- 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 after completion of development work at site or

cc-25 of 2020

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. OPs sternly denied that they are not the proprietor of said land in dispute and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                              It is observed 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-3. It is admitted by OPs that complainant deposited 25% of price of plot with Opposite Parties and 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. Action of OPs in not refunding the money deposited by complainant with OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. The complainant further proved that as per Revenue Record, the land in question is not in ownership of Opposite Parties. In these circumstances when land in question is not free from encumbrances and as OPs have no proprietorship over said land, therefore, complainant is entitled to get refund of the money deposited by him 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-25 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. He  argued that  in  view   of   it,  the  complainant is entitled to refund of money deposited by him alongwith interest  and  compensation.

 10                                        It is noticed that the price of land in dispute is Rs.18,00,000/-and complainant has made payment of Rs.4,86,000/-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–Delay in 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 Commission decided that if OPs have failed to hand over the possession in time, then, they can not demand further payment from the complainant. 

cc-25 of 2020

11                                             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-3 placed on record by complainant, OPs were required 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. It is also brought before the Commission that land in question does not belong to OPs and they hold no document of title for that place and therefore, action of OPs, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. 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 of Rs.4,86,000/- 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 by complainant to them till its final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-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 45 days  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order.

12                                  Complainant could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

 

 

cc-25 of 2020

13                                   Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law.

14                                  File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Commission

Dated : 15.01.2024

       Member                       President

     (Vishavkant Garg)    (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)