Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/51

Parminder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       51 of 2021

Date of Institution:   05.03.2021

Date of Decision :     25.04.2023

 

Parminder Kaur aged about 46 years w/o Upinder Pal Singh c/o Boor Singh Memorial Hospital, Faridkot, r/o # 142 Rose Enclave, Faridkot, Tehsil and DistrictFaridkot.                                                                              

.......Complainant

Versus

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

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:    Smt Priti Malhotra, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Smt Manjit Kaur, Ld Counsel for OP.

* * * * * *

ORDER

(Priti Malhotra, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OP seeking directions to refund the amount of Rs.18,10,585/- with interest and for further directing

cc no.51 of 2021

them to pay Rs.one lac as compensation for harassment to complainant besides litigation expenses.

2                  Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased plot no.133 measuring 200 square yards under General Category in PUDA Enclave, Baba Farid University Site, Faridkot vide allotment letter  no 4434 dated 24.07.2015. Complainant paid Rs.18,10,585/- -as total price of plot and nothing is due towards him. As per letter of intent, OP 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 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 to complainant and also did not deliver the possession of plot in dispute to him and even despite repeated requests, there is no demarcation 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 purchased by complainant from them to him within prescribed time, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made several requests to OP to either hand over the

cc no.51 of 2021

possession of plot or to refund the amount of Rs.18,10,585/-deposited by him towards price of plot, but OP did nothing needful. 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 Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 16.03.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                      OP appeared in Commission 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 of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is averred that complainant is not their consumer as he has purchased the plot in question only to gain profit. It is purchased by complainant for commercial purpose. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that development work has already been completed and answering OP has delivered

cc no.51 of 2021

possession of the plot. It is totally denied that they did not carry any development work at the site, rather technical wing of OP reported vide letter no.3713 dated 12.11.2014 reported that development work was completed and site was ready for delivery of possession to allottees and OP vide notice given in newspaper on 11.12.2014 informed all allottees to take possession, but complainant did not approach them either to take possession or asked the answering OP to make refund of cost price of plot in question. OP published a public notice in Ajit newspaper dated 29.11.2017 vide which they informed the allottees that development work of PUDA Enclave has been completed and allottees can take possession of their respective plots within 10 days of said notification failing which it would be presumed that the possession of same stands delivered to the allottee, but complainant never approached the answering OP and did not opt the option as per condition no.10 of the allotment letter, rather filed false complaint. It is admitted by Op that complainant deposited the instalments but they denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that if complainant wants to obtain refund of his amount, he should have filed an application before competent authority and in that case, answering OP would deduct 10%  of amount deposited by him and remaining amount would be refunded to complainant, but complainant never opted this option. It is reiterated that there

cc no.51 of 2021

 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. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-15 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Kaur as Ex OP-1 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 plot in question was allotted to complainant and he paid Rs.18,10,585/- towards sale consideration of the said plot with OP on different dates against duly issued receipts but OP did not deliver the possession of the plot and also did not provide basic amenities on 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

cc no.51 of 2021

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 they allotted plot to complainant vide allotment letter no.4434dated 24.07.2015. OP has further admitted that complainant deposited Rs.18,10,585/- with OP 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 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 and on 29.11.2017 in

cc no.51 of 2021

 Ajit Newspaper through which they informed the allottees to take possession by visiting the office of OP on any working day, but complainant never approached them and it is also denied that no demarcation is done at the site. Though it is admitted by Op that complainant deposited the instalments but they 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 24.07.2015 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 Ops to deliver the possession of plot to allottees and even plea taken by OP that they have already delivered the possession of land in dispute and to this effect they have an advertisement in newspaper is totally wrong. The OP did not issue any letter or notice to complainant asking him to take actual possession at site. They have not done any development work

cc no.51 of 2021

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 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

cc no.51 of 2021

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 by 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 and energy in the courts for years. The time has now come that such type of actions of the Government to allot sites without making the same litigation free

cc no.51 of 2021

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 on parity without any discrimination, because every citizen of this country before Government functionaries is equal before it.

11                                          It is observed that there is no dispute regarding allotment of plot in question and even there is no denial of the fact that complainant has deposited entire sale consideration towards the costs of plot to OP, 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 fact that they ever informed complainant to take

cc no.51 of 2021

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.18,10,585/- to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% 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 consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and 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 Commission

Dated : 25.04.2023

 

 

Member                         Member                 President

(Vishav Kantt Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)          (Priti Malhotra)