Punjab

Patiala

CC/20/200

Swati Kapor - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh Tanaj Sharma

05 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/200/2020
Date of Institution	:	30.9.2020
Date of Decision	:	5.5.2023

 

Swati Kapoor wife of Sh.Gaurav Kapoor, House No.76/1, Ajit Nagar, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA), through its Chief Administrator, PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali.
2. Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA, PUDA Complex, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Tanuj Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.A.S.Saran, counsel for OPs.       

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Swati Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:
3. That OPs floated a scheme for allotting residential plots at PUDA Enclave, Nabha. Complainant applied for allotment of a plot in general category in the said scheme on free hold basis. The complainant was declared successful in draw of plots held on 16.3.2015. OPs allotted residential plot No.102 measuring 256 sq.yards in general category at PUDA Enclave, Nabha vide letter/memo No.PTA-EO-PUDA (A-5)/2016/1955 dated 26.2.2016, for a sum of Rs.18,43,200/-, which was paid by the complainant to the OPs in two installments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter within the stipulated period, after obtaining loan of Rs.16,58,000/- from the bank. As per clause 6(1) of the allotment letter, possession of the said plot was to be handed over to the allottee after the completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter which ever is earlier. However, OPs failed to complete the  development works at the site i.e. even after 4 years of allotment and almost 3 years after the alleged delivery of possession. Not only this OPs imposed a manipulated possession letter dated 23.10.2017 to the complainant just to fulfill the documentation purpose.Basic amenities have also not been provided by the OPs so as to enable the complainant or any other allottee to reside or to raise any type of construction at the spot. As such the OPs have duped complainant and many other innocent persons of their hard earned money. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint by way of raising certain preliminary objections.
5. On merits, the admitted facts of the OPs are that complainant applied for allotment of plot in General Category in PUDA Enclave and she was successful in draw of plots and was allotted plot No.102 measuring 256 sq.yards in general category at PUDA Enclave, Nabha vide allotment letter dated 20.2.2016.The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.18,43,200/- @ Rs.7200/- per sq. yard with the OPs. The possession was to be handed over to the allottee after completion of development work at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier.
6. It is submitted that after the completion of development work letter dated 23.10.2017 was issued to the complainant for taking possession of allotted plot within 30 days from the date of issuance of said letter.Thereafter, public notices were issued in newspaper The Tribune & Ajit on 26.10.2017 intimating the allottees to take possession of allotted plots. In response to these notices number of allottees have taken the possession but complainant never came forward to take possession of allotted plot. The partial completion certificate dated 8.1.2019 issued by Chief Administrative PDA Patiala shows that all the basic amenities regarding  roads, public health services and electrical services have been completed on 30.4.2018 as per sanctioned plan and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. In evidence, complainant tendered in evidence, Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents, Ex.C1 letter dated 26.2.2016, Ex.C2 statement of account, Ex.C3 permission to mortgage, Ex.C4 possession letter, Ex.C5 letter dated 17.8.2010, Ex.C6 lay out plan, Ex.C7 judgment passed in consumer complaint titled as Raj Rani Vs. PUDA, Ex.C8 report or Er. H.G.Ahluwalia alongwith photographs and affidavit, Ex.C8/1 to Ex.C8/20, Ex.C9 report obtained under RTI, Ex.C10 identity card of complainant, Exs.C11 to C13 degree certificates of experts, Ex.C14 aadhar card of the complainant and closed evidence.
8. Ld. counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Jashanpreet Kaur, Estate Officer alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 copy of memo No.12619 dated 23.10.2017,Ex.OP2 advertisement in Daily Ajit, Ex.OP3 advertisement in The Tribune, Ex.OP4 partial completion certificate,Ex.OP5 allotment letter and closed evidence.
9. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. Admittedly, complainant was allotted a residential plot No.102 of 256 sq. yards at PUDA Enclave, Nabha vide allotment letter No.1955 dated 26.2.2016,Ex.C1. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.4,60,800/- being 25% of the total consideration amount  of Rs.18,43,200/- at the time of the allotment. The balance of Rs.13,82,400/- was also deposited by the complainant within the stipulated period as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter by availing loan from State Bank of India, Sanour for making said payment and mortgaged the said plot in favor of the bank as per permission accorded by the OPs vide letter bearing memo No.5247 dated 5.5.2016,Ex.C3.These facts are not disputed by the OPs.
11. The complainant has alleged that site of the plot was not fully developed as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and has alleged deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. It has further been alleged that the letter of possession dated 23.10.2017 was imposed upon the complainant. The complainant had relied upon the report dated 18.9.2020.Ex.C8 of an independent evaluator Er.H.G.Ahluwalia, as per which various works like covering of open nala, construction of internal roads, connecting roads, boundary wall and main gate of the colony, demarcation of plot, street lighting, operation of sewerage treatment plant, development of park sites inside colony etc. was not done as per the broucher. He has also placed on the record photographs which are Ex.C8/2 to Ex.C8/20. As such complainant has averred that the plot is not habitable and no construction can be carried out on the plot.
12. The OPs in the reply have raised the preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer as the plot was purchased by her for speculative purposes. To prove this fact the OPs have failed to place on record any such document indicating that the plot was purchased by the complainant for speculative purposes and as such this objection of the OPs is not tenable.
13. Ld. counsel for the OPs has further argued that the plots were offered on as is where is basis and the complainant was offered the plot on the same terms and conditions and now she cannot challenge the same. However, this fact cannot be denied that wide publicity was given by the OPs with reference to the said scheme with detailed advertisement / broacher highlighting the various development works to be undertaken by the OPs. As such the plea of the OPs that the plots were offered on as is where is basis is not justified as the OPs were liable to develop the project as per the broacher /publication and cannot take advantage of their own terms and conditions/deficiencies.
14. The OPs have further relied upon the letter dated 23.10.2017,Ex.OP1 and also public notices issued in Ajit and The Tribune on 26.10.2017,Exs.OP2 and OP3 intimating the allotes to take the possession of allotted plots as all the development works have been completed by the OPs. They have further relied upon the letter dated 8.1.2019 issued by Chief Administrator,PDA,Patiala,Ex.OP4, as per which the development works for providing basic amenities  of Open Jail Site PUDA Enclave, Nabha have been completed on 30.4.2018. However, as per the said letter the development for green belts and parks, development of balance area of site as per future planning, laying of final topping on road, development of commercial pockets and construction of STP with necessary machinery was yet to be completed.
15. A perusal of the said letter clearly indicates that the letter has been issued on 8.1.2019 on the basis of report dated 30.4.2018 of S.E., P.D.A.  i.e. after a gap of almost 8 months from the date of submission of the report which raises doubt about the authenticity of such certificate. Moreover,  said completion certificate is again incomplete as various development works alongwith construction of sewerage treatment plant with necessary machinery is yet to be undertaken by the OPs. The certificate in itself is a partial completion certificate and does not extend any help to the OPs in their claim that all the development works have been completed by them.
16. Further this certificate is an internal document of the OPs and a report dated 18.9.2020 of the independent evaluator (who is highly qualified and is Fellow of Institution of Valuers India, Fellow of Institution of Engineers India, Chartererd Engineer India, Member Indian Council of Arbitration) relied upon by the complainant clearly rebuts the arguments of the OPs that the site has been developed as per the advertisement/broacher. Open Nallah has not been covered leading to foul smell and unhygienic condition. Street lights have not been installed.STP is not in operation. Boundary wall, main gate entrance has not been installed thereby leading to security issues. Pacca roads (mattled roads) have not been constructed.
17. The OPs have further relied upon the order of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.462 of 2021 titled as PUDA Vs. Sukhdarshan Singh, decided on 29.7.2022, wherein the appeal has been upheld and order issued by District Commission for award of compensation has been setaside. However, this appeal has no relevance to the present case as the facts of the same are different. In the said appeal Sukhdarshan Singh had not deposited the consideration amount of Rs.14,40,000/- for the allotment of the plot and had paid only partial amount. Moreover, the appellant had already refunded the entire amount of Rs.4,65,931/- to Sukhdarshan Singh  on 1.1.2020 .
18. In view of the discussions above, it transpires that the complainant had deposited the entire amount of Rs.18,43,200/- for the allotment of plot within the stipulated period with the OPs. The OPs had failed to develop the site as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, advertisement/broacher within 18 months from the date of allotment i.e. 5.5.2016 i.e. by 5.11.2017. Even the completion certificate produced by the OPs themselves is a partial completion certificate and the report of Independent Evaluator (Ex.C8) clearly indicates that various works have not been undertaken/completed by the OPs till 18.9.2020. There is no justification in forcing the allottee to take possession until the plot could be utilized for construction of residential house. As such OPs were deficient in not providing the facilities to the complainant as per their terms and conditions and are liable to refund the total amount deposited by the complainant. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Debashis Sinha Vs. RNR Enterprises, Civil Appeal No.3343 of 2020 decided on 9.2.2023.
19. Accordingly, complaint is partly allowed and  OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.18,43,200/-so  deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which OPs shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the respective dates of deposits till realization. The OPs are also burdened with Rs.10,000/-to be paid to the complainant as compensation which is inclusive of costs for causing mental agony and harassment to him, within the stipulated period as described above.             
20.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President