Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/550/2020

Smt. Saroj Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.K. Singal & Ammish Goel Adv

06 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/550/2020
Date of Institution	:	15/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/12/2024

 

Smt. Saroj Goyal wd/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar Garg r/o House No.1529, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 160022.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

1.Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA), through its Chief Administrator, Office at PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62, Mohali (Punjab).

2.Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) through its Estate Officer, Office at Ferozepur Road, Near Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana (Punjab).

3.Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA), Office at Puda Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana (Punjab).

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Ammish Goel, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Anuj Kohli, Counsel for OPs

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that on 6.11.2012, OPs 1 & 2 invited applications for allotment of 601 residential plots at Puda Enclave (Sugar Mill Site), Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Punjab).  As per clause 1 of application, 10% price of the plot was to be deposited alongwith application and 15% was to be paid within 30 days from the date of issuance of letter of intent and the possession was to be handed over after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, on 27.11.2012 deceased husband of the complainant namely Sh. Satish Kumar submitted application form for allotment of a 250 sq. yards plot and deposited booking amount of ₹2,12,500/- after which plot No.476 was allotted in his favour vide draw held on 10.1.2013. However, even after completion of formalities, he received letter dated 18.3.2013 from OP-3 intimating that Letter of intent could not be issued due to non completion of formalities.  The husband of the complainant regularly visited the site and there was no development activity going on there.  Unfortunately on 9.5.2014 husband of the complainant expired and vide letter dated 4.12.2014, complainant requested the OPs to transfer the aforesaid plot in her favour but vide letter dated 17.9.2015, OP-3 informed the complainant that the plot could not be transferred in her favour until and unless the required formalities were completed.  Thereafter the complainant also visited the site  and found that there was no development activity going on there and the same was also confirmed by OP-2 in reply dated 25.4.2019 and 9.5.2019 to an application filed by similar allottee. Finally, finding no development at site even after approximately 8 years, the complainant vide letter dated 7.12.2018 requested the OPs to refund the deposited amount of ₹5,31,250/- but vide letter dated 30.1.2019 OP-2 informed her that only ₹3,18,750/- would be refunded to her after deducting 10% of the amount.  Thereafter the complainant also sent a legal notice dated 14.9.2020 to the OPs to refund the deposited amount but with no success.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        In their written version OPs admitted the factual matrix. However, it is averred that vide letter dated 12.12.2014 complainant informed the OPs about the demise of her husband, Sh.Satish Kumar Garg and requested to transfer the plot in her name.  In response thereto, vide letter dated 17.9.2015, OP-2 informed the complainant that the allotment letter could not be issued in her name and she was told to apply in prescribed form for change of ownership. Thereafter, complainant submitted application dated 18.6.2018 for transfer of the plot on the basis of an unregistered will dated 4.4.2014. In the meantime vide letter dated 7.12.2018 complainant and Sh. Rahul Garg requested the OPs to refund the deposited amount and in response thereto, vide letter dated 30.1.2019 OPs informed the complainant that as per policy she is eligible for refund after deduction of 10% amount and sought her consent for the same but she failed to do so.  It is denied that despite lapse of 8 years there is no development at site.  It is maintained that the OPs had duly developed the said colony/scheme and provided all the basic amenities as per terms and conditions of brochure on 30.9.2015.  The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        In replication, complainant controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated her own.
4.        Parties led evidence in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
6.        The main issue involved in the present consumer complaint is whether there is any deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs or not?

              In order to find out answer to this question, the following facts and circumstances are necessary to be discussed.

7.        The husband of the complainant was allotted the plot in question in the draw of lots held on 10.1.2013. The complainant has alleged that the OPs undertook to provide possession within 18 months but neither there was any development at the site by the OPs nor legal possession was delivered to the complainant within the prescribed period as mentioned in the brochure (Annexure C-1) of the scheme.
8.        The complainant has relied upon the order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in case of Rajwinder Kaur Vs. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA) & Ors. pertaining to the same scheme in which also OPs had not handed over possession of the plot to the complainant therein because there was no road connectivity with the colony.  The work of connectivity of road was not started by OPs even after expiry of the period specified in the allotment letter. It was held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission that as per clause 4 "Possession and ownership", mentioned in the allotment letter issued by OPs, possession of plot was to be handed over to allottee within 90 days from issuance of letter of allotment but the same was not delivered to her even after expiry of two years. Complainant in the said case had also sought information from OP-2 regarding Sugar Mill Colony Jagraon and vide letter no.DE(C-11)/GLADA/LDH/ 2017/853 dated 5.9.2017 it was informed that NOC for access to proposed PUDA/GLADA Scheme on HH-95 (New NH-05) Ludhiana Ferozepur Road at Village Agwar Khwaja Baju & Lopo Khurd, Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana was submitted to National Highway Authority of India Jalandhar by Executive Engineer, Central Works Division No.1 PWD B&R Ludhiana vide letter No.240 dated 6.7.2016. After approval, 100'-00' wide approach road was to be constructed and connected to National Highway but approval was not given by National Highway Authority for that access.
9.        The Hon’ble Punjab State Commission held that from the information provided by OP-2 it stands established that there is no connectivity with the Old Sugar Mill site and OPs had applied for necessary approval for 100'-00' wide road only on 6.7.2016 i.e. after more than one year of allotment of plot and it would certainly take long time only due to the fault of OPs.  For constructing 100'-00' wide approach road, permission is required to be obtained from Department of Forest as well because the said land falls in the jurisdiction of Department of Forest for which, OPs have not even applied till date. There was no road connectivity with the colony, therefore, delivery of possession has to be awaited for uncertain period, whereas it was promised by OPs at the time of purchase of plot that possession would be delivered to the allottees within 90 days as per clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the agreement from the date of allotment.
10.        It was further held that as per information received under RTI Act, the proposal for boundary wall and installation of gate at Urban Estate Jagraon is under consideration and no order has been passed in this regard. No sewerage connection has been allotted so far at the development project of GLADA at Sugar Mill Site, Jagraon.  One Mr. K.L.Sachdeva had also obtained information under RTI from the Divisional Engineer, GLADA, Ludhiana on 6.6.2017 to the effect that there was no proposal as yet till 17.5.2017 for raising any boundary wall nor OPs have issued any instructions in this regard. 
11.           In view of the findings of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in the case of Rajwinder Kaur (supra), it is clear that the OPs neither erected boundary wall nor the sewerage system was connected. Further there is no connectivity of the above said project with the main road.  Hence, it can be concluded that the project was not developed till 2017 which was to be developed by the OPs within 1½ years from the date of issuance of allotment letter.
12.        In the present consumer complaint OPs had collected the amount from the purchasers in the year 2012 whereas they have not developed the project till 2017.  It is settled law that builders/promoters cannot collect amount from the purchasers until and unless they have obtained all the necessary approvals/sanctions etc. from the competent authorities.  However, OPs have failed to prove on file that they had acquired the necessary approvals/sanctions from the concerned quarters before collecting amount from the gullible consumers. So, OPs cannot take benefit of their own wrongs and when there is delay in the completion of the project then it is the option of the complainant either to take the delayed possession or to seek refund alongwith interest.  It is totally wrong on the part of the OPs to withhold the hard earned money of the complainant on technical grounds when they themselves have not abided by the law governing development of sites and caused a delay to the project. 
13.        Moreover, under the Consumer Protection Act consumers are empowered with a very powerful right i.e. right to information.  There is nothing on record that the OPs had informed the complainant that the project site in question is not connected with main road. Not only this, letter dated 9.5.2019 issued by GLADA, Ludhiana stating that permission was not granted till date by National Highways Authority of India to connect the project has also been placed on record of the present consumer complaint as Ex.C-13 which proves that the project has no connectivity to the main road. A site without its connectivity to the main road could not be developed, especially when it is lacking basic amenities such as water connection, electricity connection and sewerage connection etc. which were missing in the project in question at that time.
14.           The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 & 683 of 2003 titled as Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. decided on 20.4.2007 has observed as under:-

                        “It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/ apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers. If the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such delay, and the possession of the apartment is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder would be liable to bear the escalation cost and not the buyer/consumer”.

              The Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.7.2014 observed as under:-

“The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

              The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastructure vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018  has held as under:-

“15. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/ complainants is entitled to?”

              Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 5.7.2018 held that non delivery of possession of plots/ units in a developed project by the promised date is a material violation on the part of the builder and in those cases, allottees are well within their rights to seek refund of the amount paid.

15.        Thus, the act of OPs in collecting payment from consumers without having necessary approvals from all the concerned authorities and thereafter neither delivering the possession of the plot in question nor refunding the deposited amount  to the complainant not only amounts to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice for which the consumer should be compensated adequately.
16.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed to refund the total deposited amount i.e. ₹5,31,250/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of actual realization. OPs shall also pay compensation of ₹10,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to her.
17.        This order be complied with by the OPs within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
18.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
19.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED 06/12/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER