BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.281 of 2018

Date of Instt.03.07.2018

Date of Decision: 28.09.2021

Bhagat Ram aged about 78 years son of Sh. Kharaiti Lal r/o 68, Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar City.

..…... Complainant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, near office of Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar through its Estate Officer.

…..…Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present: Sh. Ashok Bhammi, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

ORDER

Kuljit Singh (President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that OP had floated a scheme for the allotment of commercial SCO/booths, New Bus Stand, G.T Road, Jalandhar. The complainant had applied with OP vide allotment no.8705 dated 26.09.2002, OP allotted SCO/booth no. 12 measuring about 23.03 sq. yards new Bus Stand G.T Road, Jalandhar was allotted in the name of complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,94,000/-. After issuance of the said letter regarding aforesaid booth, he had deposited of Rs.98,500/- with OP as 25% of the total sale. Thereafter, complainant had deposited Rs.2,95,000/- with office of OP regarding the aforesaid SCO/booth site within the prescribed period. As per terms and conditions no.9 of the allotment letter, the possession of the booth site in question was to be delivered to complainant within 30 days of the issuance of allotment letter. After the payment of entire sale consideration regarding the aforesaid booth site in question, he had written several letters to OP and requested to hand over the possession of the booth site no.12 allotted to him as per terms and conditions of allotment letter no.8705 dated 26.09.2002 but OP failed to hand over the possession of the said booth site to him. He also served a legal notice dated 28.11.2016, 10.01.2017 and 12.07.2017 to OP but failed to deliver the possession of the booth in question. On account of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP in not handing over the possession of the booth site in question, he had suffered monetary loss. Due to act and conduct of OP, he had filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- , Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, to execute a legal and valid sale deed in favour of the complainant and hand over the physical possession of the booth and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts. The complainant was allotted by way of auction booth no. 12. As per condition no.8 of the allotment letter it was clearly mentioned that site is offered on ‘as is where is basis’, as per clause no. 9 the possession of the booth site was offered to be taken within 30 days from the issuance of allotment letter and it was clear that if the allottee would fail to take the possession within stipulated period then it shall be deemed to have been considered as handed over on the due date within 30 days of issuance of allotment letter. As per clause no.10 the allottee shall undertake construction after the possession of the site is given subject to the sanctioning of building plans by the PUDA. The complainant thereafter plaid up the full price of the booth site and submitted application for sanction of building plan to raise construction at site but complainant failed to raise construction at site. Although, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant was not entitled to relief. Despite being in possession of the booth site, the complainant never intended to raise construction at site. Rest of the averments made by complainant were denied by OP even on merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and close the evidence. On the other hand, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jai Inder Singh Estate Officer as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.

5. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA on the record. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Ex.C-1 is copy of letter dated 26.09.2002 regarding auction held on 09.08.2000. Ex.C-2 is copy of letter regarding part payment of booth no.12. Ex.C-3 is copy of legal notice dated 28.11.2016. Ex.C-4 is copy of reminder to legal notice dated 28.11.2016. Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 are postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-9 is copy of letter addressed by Milkh Officer to Deputy Estate Officer PUDA, Jalandhar.

6. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Jai Inder Singh Estate Officer as Ex.OP-A. Ex.OP-1 is letter regarding allotment by auction held on 09.08.2000. Ex.OP-2 is copy of letter regarding to raise building in Urban Estate. Ex.OP-3 is copy of specification of Booth no.12. Ex.OP-4 is copy of letter addressed by complainant to Estate Officer PUDA, Jalandhar. Ex.OP-5 is copy of letter dated 01.06.2007 and Ex.OP-6 is copy of letter regarding part payment of booth no.12. Ex.OP-7 is letter regarding issuance of NDC for new Bus Stand near Booth no.12.

7. From perusal of record, it reveals that Op allotted booth no.12 measuring about 23.03 sq. yards situated opposite New Bus Stand G.T Road, Jalandhar in the name of complainant for total sale consideration of Rs.3,94,000/-. The said booth was allotted to complainant in auction held on 09.08.2000, this fact is clear from copy of letter Ex.C-1 on the record. The complainant is ready to deposit remaining amount of the booth in question with OP, if any and he want registry of the same, therefore, he wrote letter Ex.C-2 with OP, which is placed on record. But there is not document for possession of booth in question placed on record to prove this fact that allotment letter of booth no.12 was allotted to complainant. The OP failed to give possession of the booth in question. The complainant also wrote letter Ex.OP-4 to OP regarding delivering the possession of the booth in question but OP failed to do so. From perusal of letter Ex.OP-4 it is clear that this fact was in the knowledge of OP but it intentionally ignored the request of the complainant. This act and conduct of OP clear that lapse on the part of OP is proved. The OP failed to produce any valid document whether possession of the booth in question delivered to complainant or not. Negligence on the part of OP is proved. This fact is clear that auction of the booth no. 12 held on 09.08.2000, but possession of the booth in question not delivered to the complainant. If possession of the booth in question not delivered to complainant then it was not possible to complainant to raise construction of the same. Allotment letter issued to complainant vide Ex.C-1 but possession of the same was not delivered to complainant. The possession of the booth site in question was to be delivered to the complainant by OP within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter and thereafter complainant was to raise construction over the booth site allotted to him, but OP failed to do the same.

8. Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh has decided this point in its judgment titled as Karamjit Singh Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & others, decided on 04.12.2015, wherein OPs are directed to refund the amount which has deposited by complainant with interest. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble National Commission i.e. Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 i.e. "Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & Anr. Versus Munish Dev Sharma" alongwith F.A. No. 1261 of 2014 i.e. "Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & Anr. Versus Sanjay Gupta" against the order passed by the Principal Bench in CC No. 81 of 2013. In that judgment, the Hon'ble National Commission observed that Ops had invited the applications from the general public and after taking the substantial amount of money issued the allotment letter, however, they had failed to deliver the possession for a period of more than 3 years. A reference was also given to the writ petitions filed by the land owners before the Hon'ble High Court in which order of status quo regarding possession was ordered and it was observed that at the time of launching the scheme, Ops were not in possession of entire land, which amounted to unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act. After relying upon the judgments in "Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank" (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 711 and "Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh", (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65, "Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Lal" 2010 CTJ 121 (Supreme Court) (CP) and "Dilbagh Rai Jarry V. Union of India", 1973 (3) SCC 554 upheld the order passed by the State Commission. It was observed that the appeal is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and same was dismissed with punitive cost of Rs. 5 lacs and its SLP No. 23471 of 2015 in Civil Appeal No. 9294 of 2015 "Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Versus Munish Dev" was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the view of this State Commission has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case Ops had indulged in unfair trade practice then the refund of the amount taken by Ops is a valid order.

9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that deficiency in service on the part of OP is proved. As such, we allowed the complaint of the complainant and OP is directed to hand over the physical possession of the booth site no. 12 measuring 23.3. sq. yard situated opposite New Bus Stand G.T Road, Jalandhar to complainant and to execute legal and valid sale deed in favour of complainant regarding booth in question. The complainant is also awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment faced by him due to illegal act and conduct of OP. If OP failed to comply with the order within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order then it shall be liable to refund the amount which has deposited by the complainant with it with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of allotment of OP till its final realization.

10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. 11. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

28^th of September 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)

Jaswant Singh Dhillon

(Member)