Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/101

Harjinderpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Urban Planing - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       101

Date of Institution:  12.08.2015

Date of Decision :     8.01.2016

 

Harjinderpal Singh s/o Raghbir Singh  r/o Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                      .......Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer.

2. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali through its Chief Administrator.

                        ....Opposite parties (Ops)

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:      Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

    

   Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                     Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                     

    (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 start the construction work at site, to deliver the possession of plot immediately to complainant or to refund the amount deposited by him with interest and to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses.

   2                                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OPs launched a scheme for development of colony at Sugar Mill Site, Faridkot as PUDA Enclave and as per scheme, plots were to be allotted by way of draw of lots. Said scheme started on 3.06.2013 and closed on 2.07.2013. Vide application no. 346, Complainant applied for plot in said scheme and paid Rs. 2,25,000/-on 1.07.2013. OPs assured complainant that colony would be developed within 2 years and possession of plot was to be delivered after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. On 30.08.2013, draw of lots was held and vide allotment letter no 10381 dt 20.12.2013, complainant was intimated that plot measuring 250 square yards was allotted to him and he was asked to deposit Rs 3,37,500/-as 15% of price of plot within 30 days. On receiving the same, complainant approached OP-1 and sought more time and on his request, he was granted more time for depositing instalment alongwith interest. In February, 2014, complainant deposited Rs 3,40,875/- i.e instalment with interest to OP and also asked about the starting of work at site and he was assured that work would start within five months. After five months, when construction work did not begin, complainant asked OP-2 over phone, who assured that work at site would start within next three months. In January, 2015 complainant approached OP-1 for depositing Rs 5,62,000/-, but OP-1 did  not get deposit the said amount from complainant and told that till date, no work at site has started and so no instalment would be get deposited and as soon as the construction work begins, the instalment would be got deposited and also assured complainant that construction work at site would start within next two months. But even after expiry of three months, work at site did not start. Thereafter, complainant visited OP-1 with a request to refund his entire amount as he is residing in a rented house and he wants to construct his own house, but OP-1 did not listen his request. Complainant made many requests to OP-2, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused harassment and financial loss to complainant for which he is entitled for compensation alongwith possession of said flat. Hence, the  present complaint.

   3                                         The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.08.2015, 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 in view of terms and conditions agreed upon between complainant and OPs, present complaint is not maintainable and any dispute if arises, that shall be referred to Sole Arbitrator, Chief Administrator, PUDA and such arbitration shall be governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act and therefore, complaint is not maintainable. It is averred that complainant has no cause of action against OPs and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is further averred that some dispute regarding land, which earlier belonged to Cooperative Sugar Mills is still pending and therefore, relief claimed cannot be granted to complainant. However, on merits OPs have admitted the allotment of said plot to complainant but denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that a brochure containing terms and conditions regarding scheme was issued to complainant. It is altogether denied if OPs ever assured complainant about development of colony within 2 years and delivery of possession of plot after completion of development work at site is also denied. However, as per letter of intent, OPs were hopeful for completion of development work within stipulated period. It is asserted that draw of plots was held on 30.08.2013 and complainant was informed about his allotment of plot vide letter dt 20.12.2013 and was also asked to deposit 15 % of price and 2% of cost of plot as “The Punjab State Cancer and Drug Addiction Treatment Infrastructure Fund”. It is further asserted that OPs never assured complainant that construction work would start within three months. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                           Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Mohit Kakkar as ExC-4 and documents Ex C-2 to C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjant Singh as Ex OP-1, document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                          Ld Counsel for complainant has argued that OPs launched a scheme for development of colony at Sugar Mill site, Faridkot. As per scheme, plots were to be allotted by way of draw of lots. Complainant applied for plot measuring 250 square yards and deposited Rs 2,25,000/- as application money on 1.07.2013. As per scheme, the colony was to be developed within two years and possession was to be delivered after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier by the OPs. The draw of lots was held and complainant succeeded in it. OPs intimated regarding it by letter dt  20.12.2013 and demanded payment of Rs 3,37,500/- as 15% price of the plot and same was deposited by complainant in the month of February, 2014. At the time of deposit of this amount, complainant asked about starting of work at site, who told him that work would start within 5 months, but no work was started at site. Complainant again asked about it from OPs, who assured complainant that work would start very soon but no development work started at site by OPs till today. Complainant purchased the said plot for his own residential purpose and as per scheme, the possession of the plot was to be given within two years after completion of development work of colony or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but the OPs did not make any effort to start the development work at site or delivered possession to allottees even the machinery of the Sugar Mill is still lying at the site. In January 2015, complainant approached OPs to deposit 2^nd instalment of plot as per allotment letter, but they refused to get deposited the instalment from him and directed that as development work is not started so, no instalment will be deposited and as soon as construction work starts, the instalment would be deposited and told complainant that work would start within two months, but no development work ever started on the site till today. On it, complainant again visited the office of OPs and requested them to start the development work or to refund the entire amount deposited by him towards the price of plot alongwith interest, but they did not turn up. The complainant purchased the said plot for his residential purpose and at present he is residing in a rented house. By not starting construction work at site and by non delivery of the possession of plot in time by OPs, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony and financial loss. These acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. They are misleading the consumers and got deposited heavy amount from them and are earning huge profit from that amount and they are not refunding the amount deposited by the consumers. Ld counsel for complainant has prayed that OPs may be directed to start development work at the site and to deliver the possession of plot immediately or to refund the entire amount deposited by him towards the price of plot with interest alongwith compensation to complainant.

8                                               Ld Counsel for OPs argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the agreement. if there is any dispute between parties, it should be referred to the Sole Arbitrator i.e Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority or any person appointed by him under Arbitration and Conciliation Act. So in view of above conditions, complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The relief claim by complainant cannot be granted to him as some dispute is pending with regard to land which earlier belonged to Sugar Mill. This land was allotted to OPs under OUVGL Scheme by Punjab Government and due to dispute; possession of this land is not delivered to OPs. So, they are unable to start the development work at the site. However, it is admitted that OPs launched a scheme for the development of residential colony at the Sugar Mill site, Faridkot and complainant applied for allotment of plot under this scheme. He was allotted plot of 250 square yards and letter of intent was issued to him on 20.12.2013. It is further admitted that complainant deposited Rs 2,25,000/-as application money and Rs 3,40,875/-as 15% of price of plot but it is denied altogether if OPs ever assured complainant for development of colony within two years or for possession of plot after completion of development work at site within eighteen months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier. However, it is also admitted that as per letter of intent, OPs were hopeful of completion of development work within stipulated period. It is denied if complainant ever visited the OPs for enquiring about the starting of development work at site and he was assured of starting the development work. Complainant never approached OPs for this purpose. It is further denied that complainant approached Ops in January 2015 for deposit of instalment of plot and they refused to get the same deposited on the pretext that as development work is not started and when development work will start, the instalment would be got deposited. It is further denied that complainant is residing in a rented house and is paying rent at the rate of Rs 4,500/-per month. It is wrong that complainant purchased the plot for residential purpose. Complainant did not suffer any harassment, inconvenience and financial loss due to non development of colony by the ops. As there is some dispute regarding the land which earlier belonged to Sugar Mill and it is still not transferred to OPs so, OPs are not able to develop the colony on time and these circumstances are beyond the control of OPs. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and they prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

9                                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

10                                             The case of the complainant is that OPs launched a scheme for development of residential colony at Sugar Mill site, Faridkot and complainant applied for a plot of 250 square yards. He was allotted a plot. The OPs duly issued a letter of intent to him as per demand of OPs, he deposited Rs 2,25,000/-as application money and Rs 3,40,875/- as 15% of value of the plot i.e total of Rs 5,65,875/-to the OPs. As per scheme, the possession of the 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, whichever is earlier. The allotment letter was issued to him on 20.12.2013 and as per assurance of OPs, the possession of plot was to be delivered to complainant atleast by 20.06.2015 i.e 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 allottee. In their reply, OPs admitted that they launched a scheme for development of colony and a plot of 250 square yards was allotted to complainant and complainant deposited Rs5,65,875/-towards the price of the plot to them as alleged by him, but they refused that they ever assured him to deliver the possession of the plot within two years after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier. They pleaded that land in dispute earlier belonged to Cooperative Sugar Mill and this land was allotted to OPs under OUVGL scheme by the Government of Punjab. There is some dispute, with regard to this land is pending and due to it, the possession of this land is not delivered to OPs. So, they are unable to start development work at site.

11                                            Ld Counsel for complainant argued that he purchased the plot in dispute for his residence and at present he is residing at a rented house. As per scheme the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier.  This term is clearly mentioned on the allotment letter at Sr No. 14. Copy of the letter is Ex C-2 and on the brochure in the column of Possession and Ownership at Sr No.1. Copy of the brochure is Ex Op-2, which is produced by OPs themselves. Therefore, in these circumstances, the OPs cannot deny their liability to deliver possession of plot within time. If they do not deliver possession to allottee in time, then this is a deficiency and trade mal practice on their part. Even if OPs take plea of hardship that there is some dispute regarding land, due to which they are unable to develop the site, then in that case also, the allottees are entitled to get refund of the money deposited by them towards sale consideration of plot alongwith interest and compensation. 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          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 lac is   also    allowed    to     petitioner     in     addition    to   relief   already    granted   by    District   Forum  –  Interest   at   the   rate  of  12 %  on   deposited    amount  also    allowed.     He   argued     that  in  view   of   it,  the  complainant is entitled to refund of money deposited by him alongwith interest   and   compensation.

12                                                    After  careful  perusal of the record and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, we have  come to the   conclusion that as per  terms and  conditions   of the scheme, which   are clearly   mentioned    on the brochure Ex OP-2 and letter of intent Ex C-2, OPs have to deliver the possession  of   plot   after   development   within   2   years   or                  within   18   months   from   the date of issuance   of letter   of              allotment, whichever is earlier, but OPs  have  failed  to  comply  with           this   condition   and   not  started  the   work   on   site.    The    OPs     themselves   admitted   that   there   is   some   dispute   regarding   the    land, so,  they  did  not  start   the   development   work.   In    these   circumstances, we  are  fully  convinced  with  the  arguments  advanced  by   ld   counsel      for  complainant and  case  law  produced  by  him.     Complainant    has     fully  succeeded  in  proving  his case  and  is  entitled   for   refund   of     money deposited by him as price of plot. Ops are liable for deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to OPs to refund of Rs 5,65,875/- the amount deposited by complainant with them as price of the plot alongwith interest at the rate of   12 % per anum from the date of its payment by complainant to them till its final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs 20,000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs 5,000/-as litigation expenses.   The   OPs   are   directed   to   comply   with   the         order  within   a   month   from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order,  failing  which  complainant  can initiate  proceedings  under   section    25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 8.01.2016        

     Member               Member                 President              (Parampal Kaur)    (P Singla)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)