2. That in the draw of the plots in the scheme held on 24.12.2015, the name of the complainant for plot No.71 of 125 Sq. Yards in the scheme was drawn. The OP did not give any information of the draw to the complainant through post or SMS or Email. It may specifically be mentioned here that the application for the complainant gave his email address and mobile number as required in the form and OP conveyed the message dated 31.10.2015 for having registered in the scheme from their email ID i.e. . During the period of draw and thereafter, the complainant has not been keeping good health and could not know about the draw of the plot. On coming into knowledge of the same from own sources, the complainant contacted the EO (OP) on 27.01.2016 and submitted the necessary affidavit and ID proof as per his instructions to Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Assistant in the office on 29.01.2016, who also informed the complainant that the documents were to be submitted upto 15.01.2016 and also got a letter of request for condonation of delay and informed the complainant that after receiving the sanction for Addl. Chief Administrator, Jalandhar, the LOI will be issued to the address of the complainant. That despite the fact, the necessary documents were submitted before 02.02.2016, the date of issue of LOI (Letter of Intent). The complainant did not receive the LOI even after personally meeting with concerned assistance and EO upto 15.02.2016 and thereafter, on the pretext that it will soon be issued after sanction is obtained.

3. That on realizing that the complainant was being harassed on the matter, the complainant submitted written request on 23.02.2016 to the OP for the issue of LOI stating full facts and the reminder of the same on 30.03.2016, but no reply was received. Even the registered representation made to Chief Administrator, Mohali on 18.04.2016 and its reply for action sent to the OP for initiation necessary action, vide letter No.puda-S-3-2016-9482 dated 02.05.2016 for the issue of LOI, the OP remained silent and did not make any reply on the matter to the complainant. On 27.05.2016, the complainant submitted an other letter bearing No.1680 dated 27.05.2016 for issue of LOI in view of earlier representation and in view of the letter of the office of CA Mohali. After that a letter dated 31.05.2016 by the OP with reference to the representation of the complainant made on 23.02.2016 denying to issue LOI with reference to Term 6 at Page 6 of the brochure against the principle of natural justice and indulgence of unfair trade practice by restricting the rights of the buyers of the plot in the draw of lot without any information given or without giving opportunity to hear. The terms scribed in the brochure by OP for the applicants are very much against the equal level field terms for the parties and are highly violating of the provisions of MRTP Act so as to result in unlawful advantages to the OP and unlawful advantages to the applicants of the draw as in the case of the present complaint that without any information his right of the plot has been usurped by the OP. The complainant also submitted a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, but OP refused to compromise the matter rather the OP further indulging into unfair trade practice, by issuing a cheque of Rs.1,52,000/- bearing cheque No.019217 dated 26.07.2016 on account of the refund of the earnest money against form No.753/125 Sq. Yards, Plot No.71, Site Old Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar, by deducting Rs.5000/- from the earnest money deposited by the complainant. Despite the fact that the complainant had never asked for refund of earnest money in any of the representations made for issue of LOI. Even in the letter of refund, the OP did not mention the fact of any deduction of Rs.5000/- made or the reason/law under which the deduction was being made. All this was done, in a concealed manner unlawfully and during the pendency of the compromising efforts being made in the Permanent Lok Adalat, which amounting to disrespect of the Court and indulge of unfair trade practice by OP. All this was done against the rules of refund of earnest money prescribed in the brochure of the OP at Page No.9. The complainant made another letter dated 09.11.2016 to the EO, Puda for the refund of unlawful deduction of Rs.5000/- made from the earnest money, but the OP has failed to comply with the same, which is clear cut negligence on the part of the OP and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund Rs.5000/-, deducted unlawfully from the earnest money, deposited by the complainant with interest from the date of deposit and further OP be directed to pay compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost and further submitted that the complainant failed to submit the required documents in the office of the answering OP till 15.01.2016 as required under Clause-6 of the brochure, which is as under:-

“Those successful in the draw will be required to submit documents in PUDA office, Jalandhar in person or through postal means by the date mentioned in the brochure. The proof of submission shall be the receipt issued by Estate Office, PUDA Jalandhar which shall be updated on the website www.puda.gov.in on daily basis. The application for which supporting documents are not received in time will be rejected and next in the waiting list will be allotted the plot. No claims whatsoever shall be entertained later.”

It is further alleged that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and even this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the complaint. On merits, the factum in regard to allotment of the plot and refund of the earnest money after deducting Rs.5000/-, is admitted, but on the ground that the complainant failed to deposit the requisite documents within a stipulated time. The other averments made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. From the pleadings of the party, it reveals that the claim of the complainant in this complaint is only that the OP has illegally, wrongly and against the law, deducted Rs.5000/- from the earnest money i.e. Rs.1,57,000/- deposited by the complainant, vide draft dated 14.10.2015, the photostat copy of the same is Ex.C-1 and thereafter, the said earnest money of Rs.1,57,000/-, was not refunded to the complainant rather refunded Rs.1,52,000/-, vide photostat copy of the cheque Ex.C-8 and thereafter, the complainant sent a letter to the OP for explaining the reason of unlawfully deduction of Rs.5000/- from the earnest money, the said letter is Ex.C-4 and in response to this letter, the OP only alleged that the said amount was deducted as per rules, but no rules have been brought on the file by the OP, rather the OP has tendered into evidence only one affidavit Ex.OP/A and if the OP alleged that there is any rule and regulation for deducting some amount from the earnest money, if needs to be refunded, in the absence of any rule and regulation, how we can construe that the amount of Rs.5000/- has been rightly deducted by the OP rather it is established that the OP has illegally and unlawfully deducted the amount of Rs.5000/- from the earnest money deposited by the complainant and as such, there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.5000/- deducted unlawfully from the earnest money deposited by the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit, till realization. Further OP is also directed to pay compensation for mentally harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and OP is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

20.03.2018 Member President