DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 271 of 13.7.2017

                                      Decided on:   4.8.2021

Sukhdarshan Singh son of Sh.Gurcharan Singh, resident of Ward No.12, Lehragagga, District Sangrur, now resident of House No.47/2, Professor Enclave, Opposite Punjabi University, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Punjab Urban Development Authority, Patiala through Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala.                                                        …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Ranjit Singh,counsel for the complainant.

                                      Smt.Kusum Sood, counsel for OP.  

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sukhdarshan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is allottee  of residential plot No.226 measuring 200 sq. yards in General Category, at PUDA Enclave, Nabha on Free hold basis vide memo No.PDA-EO-PUDA(A-5)/2015/14031 dated 21.8.2015, the tentative price of which was Rs.14,40,000/- calculated @ Rs.7200/- per sq. yard. It is averred that initial 25% amount of Rs.3,60,000/- has already been deposited by the complainant and the balance payment of Rs.75% i.e. Rs.10,80,000/- was to be paid by the complainant in lump sum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter or in 6 equated half-yearly installments alongwith interest @12% per annum as indicated in the schedule given in the allotment letter.
3. It is averred that the OP promised to remove the trees, to provide water supply, sewerage piping, construction of roads, electric polls, construction of parks and to provide other basic necessities and to hand over the possession of the plot after completion of development works at site  or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier but the OP failed to fulfill its promise. It is further averred that the complainant wrote an application to the OP under RTI Act,2005 through his son. Legal notice dated 15.5.2017 was also got  sent to the OP but in vain rather the OP issued show cause notice dated 11.4.2017 to the complainant for the deposit of 2^nd installment of the plot in question which was duly replied  on 26.5.2017 in response to which the OP again issued letter dated 19.6.2017 but failed to hand over the possession of the plot in question and also to complete the work at the site. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OP to pay the following amount to the complainant;

1. Rs.3,60,000/- amount of 25%
2. Rs.3,09,600/- amount of 1^st installment
3. Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment
4. Interest @18% per annum on Rs.6,69,600/- from the date of purchase i.e.21.8.2015 till realization.

4. Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant does not fall in the ambit of consumer. It is submitted  that the OP always allots the plots on ‘as is where is’ basis and plot of the complainant was also allotted on similar terms. It is further submitted that as per the  report of concerned office, the development work in the concerned scheme is almost complete. It is pleaded that the development of the allotted colony was to be completed within stipulated period of 18 months from the date of allotment of the plots. It is further pleaded that it has been a very sprawling project and the concerned officials have made huge efforts to complete the development works in the colony.
5. On merits, it is reiterated that the plots are always allotted on ‘as is where is basis’. It is pleaded that the development procedure is not to be undertaken  by the OP but by the executive engineer’s office only and the detailed status report of the development  shows that till 8.7.2017 the development of roads was 95% completed and other services were also almost entirely undertaken and the possession of the allotted plot was to be handed over at the earliest. It is further pleaded that by the month of September,2017, the work regarding the electricity cables was also almost completed. It is further submitted that the OP is making every effort to complete the works at the earliest and the plots are almost ready for possession. There is thus no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments the OP party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms Anuprita Johal, EO, PDA/PUDA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant made an application for allotment of residential plot in general category to PUDA.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant was allotted plot No.226 of 200 sq. yard vide letter dated 21.8.2015 for the tentative price of Rs.14,40,000/- @ Rs.7200/- per sq. yard and the initial  25% amount of Rs.3,60,000/- has been deposited by the complainant and the balance tentative 75% amount of Rs.10,80,000/- was to be deposited by the complainant in lump sum without any interest within 60 days from the date of allotment letter. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP  has to provide water supply, sewerage piping, construction of roads, electric polls, construction of parks and to provide other basic amenities and to hand over the possession of the plot after completion of development work within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP failed to fulfill its promise and  the complainant is liable to pay interest from the date of offer of possession and will deposit the remaining installments after the offer of possession letter. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP has not fulfilled its promise and has cheated the complainant as approximately 22 months have already been passed but the OP has failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant as promised. The ld. counsel further argued that legal notice dated 15.5.2017 was issued through counsel Sh.Kamaldeep Singh Kamboj but even then the OP failed to hand over the possession, so the complaint be allowed. The ld. counsel has also relied upon the citations Raj Rani Vs. PUDA, decided  by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh on 13.6.2019,  Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Vs. Darshana Devi 2017(2) C.P.R.153, Usha Rani Vs. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority CCNo.420 of 2018 decided by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that as per the report, development work in the concerned scheme is almost complete and OP was not bound to complete the develop the concerned property. The ld. counsel further argued that the development work was to be completed within 18 months from the date of allotment of plot. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no fault of PUDA when the various agencies have not completed the work. So the complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove this case, Sh.Sukhdarshan Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint ,Ex.C1 is the allotment letter dated 21.8.2015 in which the tentative price of the plot has been mentioned as Rs.14,40,000/- @ Rs.7200/- per sq. yard. From this letter it is clear that Rs.3,60,000/- has been deposited by the complainant and balance amount was Rs.10,80,000/-.It is mentioned at point No.6 of this letter that ‘the possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter ..’18 months means , as allotment letter was delivered on 21.8.2015 and the possession was to be given till 20.2.2017. Ex.C2  is the RTI information,Ex.C3 is legal notice served to PUDA,Ex.C4 is letter written to complainant by PUDA on 20.4.2017 for depositing the amount,Ex.C5 is another legal notice,Ex.C6 is reply to legal notice by PUDA, Ex.C6 is letter written by PUDA in which  it is stated that the work will be completed at the site by 1.5.2017. So from the document it is clear that the development work was not completed within 18 months as per allotment letter,Ex.C1,Ex.C8 is reply to legal notice dated 27.7.2017 by PUDA in which it is stated that the road work at the site has been completed upto 95%, 50% work of electric connection  has been completed, the preparations are being made to develop parks.
12. So from the documents produced by the complainant, the PUDA has not completed the work within 18 months or handed over the possession to the complainant .
13. On behalf of OP Anuprita Johal has tendered affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written statement,Ex.OP1 is letter with regard to development of work in which it is stated that the work of colony shall be completed till 15.9.2017,Ex.OP2 is letter dated 18.10.2017 vide which the  complainant was offered to take the possession within 30 days,Ex.OP3 is letter to the complainant to deposit the amount.
14. Similar matter came before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab Chandigarh in the case of Raj Rani Vs. PUDA decided on 13.6.2019. It was regarding the same colony at Nabha and the PUDA was directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,04,000/-alongwith interest and Rs.11000/- was also granted as compensation. This judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission is fully applicable to the facts of the present case as the colony is the same.
15. As per the allotment letter,Ex.C1 on the file, sent on  21.8.2015,at point 6 of this letter, it is mentioned that the possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. So as per allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered till 20.2.2017 but there is no document on the file which can show that the possession  was offered to be delivered to the complainant before 20.2.2017.There are various letters on the file which show that the work was not completed even after 20.8.2017 at the spot. There is no completion certificate on the file by PUDA which can show that everything was completed at the site as promised in the allotment letter,Ex.C1 by the PUDA till 21.2.2017.The PUDA cannot wriggle out from its responsibility of completing the work and the amount has been claimed by the PUDA.
16. In the written reply a strange thing is mentioned by the PUDA wherein it has been stated that PUDA was not bound to develop the concerned properties as the development of the allotted colonies is to be undertaken by Executive Engineer. As the amount was to be received by PUDA, so it was the responsibility of PUDA to ensure that the development work was completed by the concerned agencies.
17. The complainant has demanded that he has deposited Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.3,09,000/- first installment and this fact has not been denied by the OPs. All the complaints are to be decided in summary procedure. There is order of the PUDA dated 20.4.2019 although they have not exhibited this document but they have admitted that Rs.6,69,600/-was deposited by the complainant. As already stated above the deposit of Rs.6,69,600/- has not been specifically denied by the OPs.So as this fact is not specifically denied so this fact is deemed to be admitted by the OPs.
18. So it is clear that despite the fact that the complainant has deposited the aforesaid  amount of Rs.6,69,600/- but the possession was not delivered within 18 months nor there is any certificate on the file which can show that the work of the colony is fully completed at the spot.
19. So keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab Chandigarh in the case titled as Raj Rani Vs.PUDA (Supra), the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,69,600/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of allotment letter till realization and also to pay Rs.11000/-as compensation.       

Compliance of the order be made by theOPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:4.8.2021         

                                              Y.S.Matta                  Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                               Member                             President