DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 188
Date of Institution: 05.08.2019
Date of Decision : 07.01.2020
Smt. Anita Gupta aged about 50 years W/o Parveen Kumar Gupta # Dr. Siri Ram Hospital, kameana Gate, Faridkot Mobile No. 93569-20450
.......Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Bhaggu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.......Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
*********
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh. Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.
(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 Rs.12,64,000/- to the complainant as price of plot and to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that complainant purchased plot no.184 as subsequent transferee in PUDA Enclave, Baba Farid University, Faridkot vide allotment letter no.8663 dated 16.09.2013. Earlier this plot was allotted in the name of Sushil S/o Pyare Lal, but later on it was transferred in the name of complainant. Complainant paid Rs.12,64,000/- out of price of plot which also includes interest over the purchase price. 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 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. Moreover, OP has charged interest on instalments deposited by complainant and the previous owner. OP neither provided basis facilities at the site in question nor started any development work and also did not hand over the possession of plot purchased by complainant to him within prescribed time, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made several requests to OP to deliver the possession of plot in question or to refund the amount paid by complainant as price of the plot along with interest, but they 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 Ops and has great loss to them for which they have prayed for compensation along with main relief. Hence, the present complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.08.2019, 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 terms and conditions of allotment letter, any dispute or difference should have been referred to sole Arbitrator, Chief Arbitrator PUDA 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. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant purchased the plot in question for the purpose of speculation and to make easy money. It is totally denied that they did not carry any development work at the site. As per report of Technical Wing of department vide letter no.3713 dt 12.11.2014, the development work was complete and site was ready for delivery of possession to allottees and for this purpose, OP published a public notice in newspaper dt 11.12.2014 vide which they informed the allottees to take possession by visiting the office of OP on any working day, but complainant never approached the answering OP and it is also denied that no demarcation is done at the site. 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.
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-5 and then, closed the evidence.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vinod Kumar Bansal as Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and OP-3 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 complainant deposited Rs. Rs.12,64,000/- 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, OPs 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 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. Moreover, OP has charged interest on instalments deposited by complainant and the previous owner. OP neither provided basis 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. The complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid by him as price of plot along with interest. OP are liable to deliver the possession of plot or to refund the amount of interest illegally charged alongwith interest from the date of deposit. In reply OPs admitted that they allotted plot to complainant vide allotment letter no.8663 dt 16.09.2013. They further admitted that the complainants deposited Rs.12,64,000/- to them on different dates. In reply, OP have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant purchased the plot in question for the purpose of speculation and to make easy money. It is totally denied that they did not carry development work at the site. As per report of Technical Wing of department vide letter no.3713 dt 12.11.2014, the development work was complete and site was ready for delivery of possession to allottees and for this purpose, 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 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 16.09.2013 and as per assurance of OPs, 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 have never issued any letter or notice to complainant asking him to take actual possession at 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 as 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 int he 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 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 From the careful perusal of record, 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 instalments out of sale consideration towards the costs of plot. In the light of aforementioned judgment and evidence and facts produced by parties, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not handing over the possession of plot in question to complainant and have also not completed the development work at site. Moreover, OP have not produced on record any document or letter showing the 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, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs. Rs.12,64,000/- along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of payment till realization. They are further ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The Ops are directed to comply with the orders within one month from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 07.01.2020
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
