Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/97

Vineet Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  97 dated 26.02.2021.                               Date of decision: 01.10.2024. 

Vineet Chhabra S/o. Suresh Chhabra, R/o. 291, U.E., Sector 1, Shahbad (Markanda), Distt. Kurukshetra, Haryana-136135.

Mobile:-9896551516.

Email:-

                                                Versus

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Street No.2, Ferozpur Road, Opposite GLADA, Ranjit Nagar, New Professor Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab,142021 through Chief Administrator/Estate Officer.
2. Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Street No.2, Ferozpur Rd, Opposite GLADA, Ranjit Nagar, New Professor Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab, 142021 through Chief Administrator/Estate Officer.

Mobile:- 0161-2457469, 2460924, 2460804.

Email:-

Complaint Under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Ms. Chetna, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that one Ravinder Kumar S/o. Magat Ram, 181, Vikas Nagar, Baltana, Dera Bassi, Mohali vide application No.4596 applied for one residential plot measuring 400 sq. yds. in General category at Sugar Mill, Jagraon for which he deposited Rs.3,40,000/- as application money. The draw of allotment was held on 10.01.2013 and the OPs issued letter of intent dated 28.02.2013 to Ravinder Kumar being as successful in draw of plot. Further Ravinder Kumar took loan from Cooperative Bank and the same was duly refunded by him for which the bank issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ dated 22.03.2013 in favour of the complainant. The complainant stated that he was interest in purchasing the said plot for raising construction of a house and he approached said Ravinder Kumar. As such, the complainant purchased the plot as per letter of intent dated 28.02.2013 from Ravinder Kumar and made payment of Rs.3,40,000/-. The complainant also paid Rs.5,10,000/- to the OPs as per letter of intent dated 28.02.2013. As the plot was not transferred in the name of the complainant so the receipt of Rs.5,10,00/- was issued by the OPs in name of Ravinder Kumar S/o. Mangat Ram. 

                   The complainant further stated that he applied for transfer of letter of intent with the OPs and deposited Rs.87,500/- as transfer charges. Thereafter, he deposited application form for transfer of plot in his name along with all required documents. The OPs issued letter dated 16.07.2013 in favour of the complainant mentioning that letter of intent for residential plot vide application form No.4596 for 400 Sq. Yds at Jagraon stand transferred in the name of the complainant. In the said letter the tentative price of plot as Rs.34 Lakh only was mentioned and further under clause 12 the possession of plot shall be handed over after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. According to the complainant, the Ops were supposed to give allotment letter within one month, after deposit of 15% amount i.e. rs.5,10,000/- with them, which the complainant deposited on 01.04.2013 and the Ops were to issue allotment letter within one month from 01.04.2013 i.e. up to 30.04.2013 but the OPs failed to issue allotment letter at that time. However, the complainant deposited total amount of Rs.9,37,500/- with the OPs, the detail of which is reproduced as under:-

                   The complainant further stated that he contacted the OPs many times since July 2013 with request to issue allotment letter but to no effect. However, after a long time the OPs issued allotment letter dated 29.08.2015 i.e. after two years. As per clause 4 of allotment letter, the OPs are liable to handover the possession of plot within 90 days of issue of allotment letter and as such, the OPs were to provide physical possession of the plot by 28.11.2015 but they failed to provide physical possession and even failed to develop the area. Further they are not in position to provide physical possession to the complainant. The clause 4(i) of the allotment letter is reproduced as under:-

                   “POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP

1. Possession of plot shall be handed over to allottee within 90 days of issue of allotment letter provided 25% of the tentative price has been paid. If possession is not taken by the allottee within stipulated period. It shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of said period.”

The complainant claimed to have made 25% payment for getting the possession of the allotted plot but the area was not developed as the OPs were not in possession of the land as they were under litigation with the actual owner of land. As such, the OPs could not issue allotment letter for two years and area could not be developed. The plot No.698 at Sugar Mill, Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana measuring 400 sq. yds was  allotted on free hold basis and the OPs brought the scheme for 601 free hold residential plot at PUDA Enclave Sugar Mills Sight, Jagraon in the year 2012. Further the scheme was opened on 06.11.2012 and closed on 30.11.2012. The complainant further stated that he visited the site number of times and found no development work there. He many times contacted the OPs but no information was provided. Even he asked the OPs to hand over the possession of plot after completing all development works at the site upon which the OPs informed that due to some technical hitch, they are not in position to develop the area. As such, finding no option, the complainant asked the OPs to refund the deposited amount in September 2020 but the OPs did not make any refund. Even the complainant served legal notice dated 21.10.2020 upon the OPs but to no effect. The complainant visited the site on 07.02.2021 but again found that the area was not developed and the OPs are not in position to provide the actual and physical possession of the plot. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to provide physical possession of plot No.698, Urban Estate, Sugar Mill Jagraon, District Ludhiana or to refund Rs.9,37,500/- along with interest. The complainant also prayed for paying Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                 Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement assailed by complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; lack of cause of action; lack of jurisdiction; the complainant being not a Consumer of the OPs; the complaint is barred by Section 174 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995; the complainant has not approached with clean hands; suppression of material facts etc. The OPs stated that Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o. Mangat Ram, R/o 181, Vikas Nagar, Baltana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali, Punjab applied on 30.11.2012 for the residential plot measuring 400 sq. yards in S.C Category at Sugar Mill Site Jagraon, vide application no.4596, under OUVGL Scheme. The above said Ravinder Kumar deposited an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as earnest money along with application form as 10% price of total plot. The draw of the plot was held on 10.01.2013. Sh. Ravinder Kumar remained successful in the draw. The OPs issued the letter of intent to Sh. Ravinder Kumar vide no.1562, dated 28.02.2013 mentioning the terms and conditions of allotment. Sh. Ravinder Kumar further deposited an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- as 15% amount of the plot as per terms and conditions (no.4) of letter of intent. This office also issued receipt dated 01.04.2013 for the same. The tentative price of the plot is Rs.34 Lac i.e. @ Rs.8500/- per sq. yards. The allottee Sh. Ravinder Kumar applied for transfer of plot in the name of Sh. Vineet Chhabra S/o. Sh. Suresh Chhabra R/o 291, Sector-I, HUDA, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurkushetra. The said request was allowed vide memo no.4034 dated 16.07.2013 by the office of OPs who held numbering draw on 13.08.2015 in said scheme and plot No.698 was allotted to the complainant and an allotment letter bearing memo no.4331 dated 29.08.2015 was issued in the name of the complainant. The complainant purchased the said plot from Mr. Ravinder Kumar after satisfying the terms and conditions of the said allotment letter as well as the provisions of the Punjab Regional Development and Act, Town 1995 Planning and all instructions/guidelines issued thereafter as well as the  brochure of allotment of 601 freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave (Sugar Mill Site) at Jagraon. As per the clause 12 of LOI, possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of the Development work at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. As per clause 4 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee within 90 days of issuance of allotment letter provided 25% of tentative price has been paid. If possession is not taken by the allottee within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of said period. The development work of the project i.e. Civil Work Electric Work and Public Health work has been completed on 30.09.2015. The allottee was to complete the construction within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the plan sanctioned from the Competent Authority, but the allottees failed to get the plan sanctioned within the stipulated period and have failed to raise the construction there upon.

                   The OPs further stated that the complainant has not even applied for getting the electricity or water-sewerage connections meaning thereby the allottees has not complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment. It is worth to mention here that electricity work at the spot has already been completed on the part of the respondent Authority, which has already been handed over to the Electricity Department for further action on the part of Electricity Department. All the ground work with regard to the installation of the transformer, go-switch, Energy meter, feeder panels with bus bar and MCB and iron glad switches have been installed by the GLADA Authority. Thereafter, further electrical work for of the issuance of electric connection to the customers was handed to the Electricity Department vide memo no. 445 dated 29.03.2016. According to the OPs, non-construction charges of Rs.2,94,215/- up to 31.12.2021 are pending against the allottee/complainant. Further as per condition No.8 of the allotment letter dated 29.08.2015, it was clarified that all the disputes and or difference which may arise in any manner touching or concerning this allotment shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator, Punjab, Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) or any person appointed/nominated by him in this behalf.

                   On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of No Due Certificate dated 22.03.2013, Ex. C2 is the copy of letter of intent dated 28.02.2013, Ex. C3 is the copy of agreement to sell dated 20.03.2013, Ex. C4 is the copy of receipt dated 01.04.2013 of Rs.5,10,000/-, Ex. C5 is the copy of receipt of Rs.87,500/- dated 30.05.2013, Ex. C6 is the copy of application form for transfer of plot, Ex. C7 is the copy of acknowledgement dated 30.05.2013, Ex. C8 is the copy of transfer letter dated 16.07.2013, Ex. C9 is the copy of allotment letter dated 29.08.2015, Ex. C10 is the copy of brochure, Ex. C11 is the copy of legal notice dated 21.10.2020, Ex. C12 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C13 to Ex. C19 are the photographs, Ex. C20 is the newspaper, Ex. C21 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amit Kumar, Sr. Assistant (A/cs) of the OPs along with documents i.e. Ex. R1 is the copy of Completion Certificate, Ex. R2 is the copy of completion certificate  Ex. R3 is the copy of judgment, Ex. R4 to Ex. R11 are the copies of photographs and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by the parties.

6.                Undisputably, one Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Mangat Ram on 30.11.2012 applied for plot measuring 400 sq. yds with the OPs at Sugar Mill site Jagraon, by depositing Rs.3,40,000/- as earnest money being 10% of the price of total plot. He remained successful in draw of lot held on 10.01.2013 and letter of intent dated 28.02.2013 Ex. C2 was issued in his name. The complainant vide agreement to sell dated 20.03.2013 Ex. C3 purchased the said plot from said Ravinder Kumar, on the basis of which, the complainant submitted application form for transfer of the plot Ex. C6 with the OPs duly acknowledged by the OPs vide letter Ex. C7. Total sum of Rs.9,37,500/- stood paid by said Ravinder Kumar with the OPs vide no due certificate/receipt Ex. C1, Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 respectively out of the total cost price of the plot as Rs.34,00,000/-. Even vide transfer of letter of intent dated 16.07.2013 Ex. C8, the plot in question was transferred in the name of the complainant. However, the allotment letter Ex. C9 was issued in favour of the complainant on 29.08.2015. As per allotment letter Ex. C9, the OPs were liable to deliver the possession of the plot within 90 days of the issue of allotment letter provided 25% of the tentative price has been paid. But the OPs failed to carry out development work along with promised facilities at ground level. After a long wait for more than 7 years from the issuance of allotment letter dated 29.08.2015, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount received by them.

7.                Now the point of consideration arises for determination as to whether there is delay on the part of the OPs in offering the possession of the plot to the complainant and if so, whether the complainant is entitled to refund and compensation of the amount and as to what extent?

8.                In this regard, the relevant terms and conditions for Residential Plot No.698 at Sugar Mill, Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana measuring 400 sq. yard in Urban Estate Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana (Ex. C9) are set out herein below:-

          “Price

          The price of plot is Rs.34,00,000/- (in words Thirty Four lakh only)

Payment schedule

1. For initial 25%

I)  Payment of Rs.850000 made by you has been already adjusted towards initial 25% of the sale price of Residential plot. Remaining to be paid within 30 days from the issue of allotment letter.

2. For balance payment of 75%

1. The balance amount of Rs.2550000 being 75% of the sale price of plot, can either be paid in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from issue of allotment letter or in 6 half yearly installments along with an interest @12% per annum as indicated in the schedule given in (ii) below. First installment will be due after one year from date of auction.
2. In case payment is made in installments, payment schedule shall be as under:-

          4.       Possession and ownership

I) Possession of Plot shall be handed over to allottee within90 days of issue of allotment letter provided 25% of the tentative price has been paid. If possession is not taken by the allotment within stipulated period. It shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of said period.

II) The ownership of land continues to vest with Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority until full payment is made of all outstanding dues in respect of said plot.

III) Within 90 days of payment of entire money as per (ii) above allottee shall be required to execute a deed of conveyance in prescribed form and prescribed manner. The expenses for registration and execution of conveyance deed shall be borne by the allottee.

IV) The allottee shall have no right to transfer by way of sale, gift, mortgage or other wise, the plot or any other rights, title or interest in the said plot except with the prior permission of Estate Officer, which may be granted subject to payment of such fee/charges, as may be determined from time to time.

9.                When these terms and conditions contained in Ex. C9 are read together, it would reveal that they are heavily loaded in favour of the OPs and against the complainant at every step. Practically on one hand these conditions stipulate the valuable rights of the complainant and on the other hand, offer long rope for the OPs. Such unilateral, unreasonable contractual terms could not be deemed to be final and binding upon the complainant. In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Govindan Raghwan (2019) 5 SCC 725, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat  purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder…. The incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling flats by the builder….., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the respondent with such one sided contractual terms.”

10.              The counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant is not entitled for any relief of refund of deposited amount. The development works have been completed within stipulated period and said fact has been intimated to the complainant and even the possession was offered after completion development works. Further the counsel for the OPs has drawn out attention towards the completion certificates Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 to support his contentions.

11.              On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant refuted the allegations and contended that he had invested a huge amount in the project of the OPs for the purchase of the plot for his residential purposes but due to the failure of the OPs in handing over the possession of the plot, complainant had to suffer immense harassment and was deprived of usage of the same. Not only this, till date the OPs are enjoying the benefits of the amount deposited by the complainants and such like other Consumers.

12.              As per averments and allegations made by the complainant in his complaint as well as affidavit, allotment letter Ex. C9 was executed between the parties. As per said allotment letter, the tentative cost of the plot was Rs.34,00,000/-. The complainant in all deposited a sum of Rs.9,37,500/- stood already paid by said Ravinder Kumar with the OPs vide no due certificate/receipt Ex. C1, Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 respectively. This fact has not been denied by the OPs in its written statement and affidavit. As such, the complainant had adhered to the payment schedule and the possession was to be delivered within 90 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter dated 29.08.2015. However, the OPs have failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant within stipulated period.

13.              The OPs have placed on record  completion certificate Ex. R1, Ex. R2 as well as copies of photographs Ex. R4 to Ex. R11 to establish the fact that they have completed all the development work at the spot. Rather the OPs have raised a demand of Rs.2,94,215/- towards the complainant being non-construction charges  up to 31.12.2021.  However, the complainant categorically asserted that the basic amenities and development work at site is incomplete and the promised facilities are missing at the spot. Even the complainant has placed photographs Ex. C13 to Ex. C19 in this regard. Further perusal of completion certificate Ex. R1 shows that it is of dated 19.02.2021 i.e. after issuance of the legal notice dated 21.10.2020 by the complainant and even the complainant filed the present complaint on 26.02.2021. The story of the OPs of not getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authority by the complainant is an afterthought. So the OPs are guilty of rendering deficiency services and adoption of unfair trade practices.

14.              In this regard, reference can be made to Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and others Vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & others (2020) 16 SCC 512, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that “failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated period, amount to deficiency.” Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “in case of gross delay in handing over possession by builder beyond contractually stipulated period, flat purchaser is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for such delay and such compensation not constrained by terms of rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain.

                   As such, after perusing the documents on record, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a Consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress injustice done to the complainant. The amount of compensation can be determined by taking into facts and circumstances of each case and also mitigating circumstances that may arise in favour of the opposite party as well. Reference can be made to 2020(3) Apex Court Judgments 27 (S.C.) in DLF Home Developers ltd. (Earlier known as DLF Universal Ltd.) & another Vs Capital Green Flat Buyers Association Etc. Further reference can be made to Vidya and others Vs M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.8985 of 2022 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 29.07.2024 (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 557) whereby the  entire deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the complainants along with interest @12% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund.

                   Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are directed to refund the amount Rs.9,37,500 (the amount deposited by the original allottee/the complainant with the opposite parties)  along with interest @12% per annum from respective date of deposits till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Further the OPs are burdened with composite costs of Rs.50,000/-.

15.              As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OPs to refund the amount Rs.9,37,500/- (the amount deposited by the original allottee/complainant with the opposite parties)  along with interest @12% per annum from respective date of deposits till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Further the OPs shall a composite costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

16.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.10.2024.

Gobind Ram.