Punjab

StateCommission

A/477/2015

Vivek Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Urban Development Authority PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan Sehajpal

15 May 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.477 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 05.05.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on :12.05.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   : 15.05.2017

 

Vivek Sharma son of Sukhdev Sharma r/o H.No. 552, Gianai Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar, since deceased through its LRs:-

 

1.      Ruchi Sharma wife aged 39 years,

2.      Anushka Sharma, daughter aged 10 years, minor,

3.      Ayush son aged 2-1/2 years, minor through their mother and natural guardian Ruchi Sharma

                                                                                                                                                                                  Appellants/Complainants

                   Versus

 

1.      Punjab Urban Development Authority, Urban Estate, SCO No.         41, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar through its Estate Officer

 

2.      Punjab Urban Development Authority, Urban Estate SCO No.          41, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar through its Addl. Chief   Administrator.

3.      The Estate Office, Urban Estate, SCO No. 41, PUDA Complex,       Jalandhar.

4.      Secretary of Govt. of Punjab, Urban Development PUDA,       Punjab Chandigarh.

 

 

                                                               Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 01.04.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Kapurthala.

 

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

Present:-

          For appellant                : Sh.Krishan Sehjpal, Advocate

          For respondents no.1-3: Sh.G.S Arshi, Advocate

          For respondent no.4   : Ex-parte

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellants have directed this appeal against order dated 01.04.2015 of District Consumer Forum Kapurthala, dismissing the complaint of the appellants. The appellants of this appeal are the complainant in the original complaint before District Forum, Kapurthala and respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties therein and they be referred as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      Originally, complaint was instituted before District Forum             Kapurthala by Vivek Sharma (since deceased) now represented through appellants as his LRs. Short facts of the complaint are that complainant Vivek Sharma (since deceased) applied for allotment of LIG category of house/flat/dwelling unit on  hire purchase at Urban Estate Phagwara, vide registration no. 1/99, as per publication in daily newspaper. He deposited Rs.10,000/- as earnest money along with application. As per rules of PUDA, OPs allotted the ground floor flat no. 445 Urban Estate Phagwara to him; vide allotment letter no. EG-PUDA-Jal-AI(H) 99/1352 dated 05.03.1999. At the time of allotment of flat, OPs laid down the terms and conditions and the complainant was to fully abide by the same. Vide the above said allotment letter, the allottee was to deposit monthly installment of Rs.1462/- and last installment was to be paid in the year 2013. As per allotment letter, if the allottee had deposited some installments and deposits the remaining installments in lump sum, then 10% rebate would be admissible on the balance principal amount in lump sum and accordingly he paid Rs.2,17,630/- as full and final payment to OPs up to 25.02.2006 and same was accepted by OPs and no rebate was given by PUDA authorities on the said amount. The complainant made various payments to OPs through different drafts, as detailed in para no.4 of the complaint. The total cost of the plot was Rs.1,43,000/- as per the letter of the OPs dated 05.03.1999, 10%  rebate was to be given, if the full cost of the plot/house was paid within 60 days, the amount was to be paid Rs.1,31,000/- and if the payment was made in 152 installments of Rs.1462/- each, then Rs.2,28,072/-  was to be paid, but complainant paid Rs.2,17,630/- up to 2006 and no relief of rebate was given by OPs. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OPs to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of the flat in question and also to execute conveyance deed in his favour regarding the flat in dispute, but OPs again issued a letter dated 23.03.2006 addressed to him by directing him to deposit Rs.5630/- as remaining dues and the same was deposited by him with OPs. Out of which Rs.4600/- was paid, vide bank draft no. 474482 dated 12.4.2006 and Rs.1030/- vide draft no. 274482 dated 17.11.2006. The complainant made several requests to OPs regarding issuance of No Due Certificate and also to execute conveyance deed in his favour, but all in vain. OPs again issued a letter bearing no. 6496 dated 17.02.2012 i.e. after a lapse of six years from the final payment, which was paid on 17.11.2006, vide which, the complainant was directed to further deposit Rs.73,501/- in respect of the flat in question, which was totally illegal and wrong. He also served a legal notices to OPs, but of no use.  The complainant has, thus, filed complaint directing the OPs to  issue No Dues Certificate in respect of flat in question; further to withdraw the notice bearing no. 6496 dated 17.02.2012, besides Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred that demand of Rs.73051/- vide letter no. EO-JDA-S-2011/6496 dated 17.02.2012 includes the balance of the remaining installments including Rs.45603/- and penal interest till 29.02.2012 amounting to Rs.27448/-which is legal and the complainant has filed the complaint just to pressurize the OPs. Total price of the flat was Rs.1,43,000/-. Out of which Rs.35,750/- being 25% of the total price was payable before delivery of possession and remaining amount was to be payable in 156 monthly installments of Rs.1462/- each, but later on monthly installments were rescheduled after 17.02.2005 as per the calculation sheet. As per clause 5 of the allotment letter, dated 05.03.1999, the monthly installments of the house/flat allotted would be paid on or before 10th of the following month in which it falls due. In case 10th of the following month is a holiday, then, the payment would be made on next working day. If any installment was not paid within the stipulated period, then without prejudice to any action under Section 45 of the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act 1995, the complainant was liable to pay the interest on the installment so due @ 1.5% per men-sem for one year and thereafter 2% per men-sem till the date installment so due was actually paid or till the dated action was initiated under Section 45 of the above Act, whichever is earlier. The complainant never made the payments of the monthly installments regularly and was, thus, liable to pay penal interest as per clause 5 of the allotment letter and thus was not entitled to 10% rebate in case of lump sum payment on the balance principal amount. The calculation sheet showed the payments made by the complainant and balance due along with the penal interest calculated till 29.02.2012. However, the amount reflected as paid, vide draft no. 22000 dated 25.02.2006 for Rs.18,000/-, vide draft no. 474482 dated 12.04.2006 for Rs.4600/-, vide draft no. 274482 dated 17.11.2006 for Rs.1030/- was never received by OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-17 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and copy of document Ex.C-18. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ganesh Sharma along with copies of documents Ex.O-2 to Ex.O-4. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Kapurthala dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 01.04.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Kapurthala dated 01.04.2015, the complainants now appellants filed this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      We find that most of the facts in this case are not in dispute. The submission of appellants is that entire amount was paid to OPs and OPs unauthorizedly issued demand notice bearing memo no. 6496 dated 17.02.2012 for amount of Rs.73,051/-  with respect to the flat in dispute. He further urged that all installments have been cleared by complainant to OPs. The counsel for OPs denied the fact of clearance of all installments on time by the complainants. The bone of contention in this case is that, whether two drafts of Rs.18,000/- dated 25.02.2006 and draft of Rs.4600/- dated 12.04.2006 were ever received by OPs from the complainant or not. The entire controversy revolves on this point, as to whether the above-referred amounts  by means of two drafts dated 12.04.2016 and 17.11.2016 have been received by OPs from the complainant or they have been lost in the transit or have ever been sent by the complainant to OPs. The OPs put up the case of total denial of receipt of above drafts of Rs.18,000/- dated 12.04.2016 and Rs.4600/- dated 17.11.2006. OPs produced on record the copy of receipts of their office pertaining to year 2006. It contains no such entry of above drafts by the complainant.

7.      On careful appraisal of the material evidence on the record, the forceful submission of counsel for the complainant is that drafts might have been lost in the transit. This is only an hypothetical plea, which finds no legs to stand. Had they been received in the office of OPs; there might have been entries in the receipt register produced by the OPs on the file in that regard. Even copy of the certificate dated 24.02.2015 of Oriental Bank of Commerce is on the record, which is reproduced as under :-

          "This is to certify that we have issued a demand draft no.        77273 of Rs.18,000/- on dated 25.02.2006, no. 77556 of      Rs.4600/-dated 12.4.2006 and no. 274482 of Rs.1030 dated    17.11.2006. As per information by the customer the draft was   lost during transit. As per request by customer we have issued         a new draft in lieu of that no. 016830, 016829 and 016833 of       Rs.18,000/-, Rs.4600/- and Rs.1030/- respectively on dated   27.04.2013, further these draft was revalidated and that paid    on dated 12.12.2013 as per bank record."

8.      From perusal of above material evidence on the record, it has transpired that the above said drafts were not lost in the transit. There is no trace of blame on the part of the OPs in this regard. The District Forum has, thus, rightly concluded that the complainant has not cleared the payment, which were due from him to OPs in the year 2006. OPs received the payment from complainants on 12.12.2013 only. OPs are fully entitled to charge the interest and penal interest, as per conditions of the allotment letter dated 05.03.1999. The terms and conditions of allotment have not been complied with by the complainant by failing to deposit the installments in time. There is no fault of the OPs for nonpayment of the amount from the year 2006 to 2013, because as per bank certificate; the drafts were never received by OPs. The OPs are, thus, entitled to claim interest as per clause 5 of the allotment letter dated 05.03.1999 under Section 45 of Punjab Regional Punjab Town and Planning Development Act, 1995. The demand notice sent by OPs to complainant Ex.OP-4 is, thus, correct. Balance amount of Rs.45603/- and penal interest imposed thereon is Rs.27448/- and totaling Rs.73051/-. The District Forum has, thus, correctly appreciated the controversy in dispute in this case. No perversity or illegality has been detected by us in the order of the District Forum. The complainant would be entitled to No Due Certificate after clearance of due installments only. The order of the District Forum is affirmed in this appeal.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, finding no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case; the same is hereby affirmed and resultantly appeal filed by the appellants is ordered to be dismissed.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                              (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

May 15, 2017                                                              

(ravi)