Punjab

Sangrur

CC/504/2017

Aman Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sunil Sharma

15 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  504

                                                Instituted on:    27.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       15.02.2018

 

1.Aman Goyal aged 32 year son of Sh. Hukam Chand Goyal;

2.Dhiraj Prabha wife of Sh. Hukan Chand Goyal, both residents of H.No.50, SST Nagar, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainants

                                Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA Complex, Urban Estate, Phase-2, Patiala through its Estate Officer.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri S.P.Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Aman Goyal and Dhiraj Prabha, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by purchasing a shop number 5 measuring 50.32 Sq. meters situated at Banasar Enclave, Sangrur on 8.8.2016 and deposited the amount of Rs.23,77,620/- being 25% of the sale price of the shop in question with the OP. The OP  also issued memo number 15062 dated 19.12.2016 regarding the allotment of shop. It is further averred that at the time of auction, the OP assured the complainant that the site will be delivered immediately free from all type of obstructions and encumbrances with all necessary amenities like parking, lighting and pavement etc. The grievance of the complainant is that one electric pole and one telephone poles are standing in front of the shop of the complainant, which are obstructing the construction of the shop, as such, the complainant approached the OP for removal of the poles and also wrote letters dated 23.12.2016, 7.4.2017 and also got served a legal notice dated 19.5.2017 upon the OP for removal of the electricity and telephone poles standing in front of the shop of the complainant, but of no avail. It is further averred that in the presence of the poles, it is not possible for the complainant to construct the building of the shop.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to remove the electricity and telephone poles standing in front of the shop of the complainant and to pay interest @ 18% per annum upon the initial payment of Rs.23,77,620/- w.e.f. 8.8.2016 till realisation and further to extend the time of deposit of payment and to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the shop in question and deposit of the amount by the complainant is also admitted by the OP.  The case of the OP is that the OP wrote a letter dated 15.6.2017 to the concerned officials of the PSPCL Sangrur for the removal of electric poles and stay wires standing in front of the shop in dispute, but the same has not been removed and it is further stated that it is upon the officials of the PSPC Ltd for removing the electric pole and stay wires in front of the shop in dispute.  Further it is averred in the reply that the OP has also written letter to the concerned officials of Electrical Branch of PUDA for the removal of electric poles. It is stated further that the officials of the OP inspected the site on 24.4.2017 and found that the telephone pole is not effecting the property in dispute rather it is standing on the footpath.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 copies of letters and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the shop number 5 measuring 50.32 sq. meters situated at Banasar Enclave, Sangrur on 8.8.2016 and further it is not in dispute that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.23,77,620/- with the OP being 25% of the total amount of the shop.  It is also not in dispute that there are two poles standing in front of the shop i.e. one of the telephone and another of the electricity, which are effecting the construction of the shop in question.              

6.             In the present case, a bare perusal of the complaint reveals that since the complainant has spent huge amount on the purchase of the shop plot, but the OP did not bother to remove the poles in front of the shop, which we seems to be a genuine request of the complainant and further the complainant failed to construct the building due to presence of the poles in front of the shop.  This contention is also supported by Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant as well as  Ex.C-7 copy of letter dated 23.12.2016 which clearly reveals that there are two poles i.e. one of electricity and another of telephone in front of the booth and letter dated 7.4.2017 Ex.C-8.  This fact that two poles are present there in front of the shop site is also evident from the photographs Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 on record.  Further this fact is supported by the RTI information provided by the OP Ex.C-12, wherein it has been clearly stated in the report dated 19.6.2017 that the action for removal of the electric pole has been started by the OP on 19.6.2017, as such, it clearly reveals that the OP is negligent in not removing the poles from the front of the shop and as such, the complainant has suffered a lot in the hands of the OP for not removal of the poles of electricity and telephone from the shop of the complainant as further he failed to construct the building on the shop of the complainant due to the negligence of the complainant.   Though the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the site is commercial one, as such the complaint is not maintainable, but we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, as nothing has been averred in the written reply of the OP.  Further a perusal of the letter dated 13.6.2017 Ex.OP-8 sent in reply to the legal notice to the counsel for the complainant it is stated that the OP is taking up the matter with the Electricity Department for removal of the poles, but they did nothing and the Op also did not take any action in the matter.  This averment of the OP is not fair, as it is the OP only who sold the site to the complainant and the OP is duty bound to remove the poles from the front of the shop from the Electricity Department. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is negligent in not removing the telephone and electricity poles from the front of the site of the complainant and as such the complainant further failed to raise the construction thereon due to the negligence of the OP and the OP is also  liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.23,77,620/- deposited by the complainant with the OP till the removal of the poles there from the shop site in question.  

       

 

7.             In view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to remove the electricity and telephone poles immediately from the front of the shop site number 5 belonging to the complainant.  We further direct the OP to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.23,77,620/- from the date of deposit till the removal of the poles as stated above and further not to charge any interest on the remaining amount till the removal of the poles from the booth site in question, as the complainant was deprived from the use of the shop in question.  In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records. 

                Pronounced.

                February 15, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                               

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member