BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.435 of 2016

Date of Instt. 18.10.2016

Date of Decision: 25.03.2019

Deepak Khanna (Aged 46 years) son of Sh. Brij Lal Khanna, resident of House No.1143/2, Des Raj Street, Patiala.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Union Planning & Development Authority, PUDA Complex, S. C. O. No.41, Opposite D. C. Complex, Jalandhar through its Estate Officer.

2. The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA Complex, S. C. O. No.41, Opposite D. C. Complex, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. T. P. S. Kalra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. A. S. Saini, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the respondents floated a scheme namely allotment of 112 residential plots at old Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar and the said scheme was opened from 21.09.2015 and closed on 23.10.2015 and price of said plots was Rs.12,500/- per Sq. Yards. The complainant has applied for 125 Sq. Yards plot, vide application form No.1401 and as per conditions of respondents and he had deposited 10% amount along with application. Thus, complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

2. That since respondents floated a scheme namely allotment of 112 residential plots at Old Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar and the said scheme was opened from 21.09.2015 and closed on 23.10.2015 and price of said plots was Rs.12,500/- per Sq. Yards. The complainant has applied for 125 Sq. Yards plot. The respondent has hold draw of plots as per application form and complainant was successful in draw of plots and plot No.52 of 125 Sq. Yards was allotted to the complainant, who submitted affidavit along with application on 27.01.2016 to the respondents and other requisite documents required for successful allottee and completed all formalities in this regard. As per respondent's terms and conditions in the payment schedule, clause (ii) 15% price of plot is to be paid within 30 days of issue of letter of intent to complete 25% price of plot, 2% cancer cess is also payable at time of depositing 15% amount. The complainant had visited many times to office of the respondents and requested them to get deposit balance 15% amount as per payment schedule, but respondents have told the complainant that he will be required to pay balance 15% amount only after issuance of letter of intent/allotment letter within 15 days after receiving the letter. The complainant requested respondents many times to issue letter of Intent/Allotment Letter, but inspite of many personal visits from Patiala to Jalandhar, the respondents have delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and failed to issue letter of intent/allotment letter in favour of the complainant inspite of fact that complainant is successful allottee in the draw of plots. The complainant even requested through emails to issue allotment letter, but all in vain and finally the complainant sent a letter dated 28.06.2016 through registered post by which the respondents were requested to issue allotment letter of Plot No.52, but the respondents have failed to response inspite of registered letter. But now the respondents have issued a letter bearing No.EO-PUDA-SO-2016/1306 dated 04.08.2016 in which it has been mentioned that the respondents are making the refund of Rs.1,52,000/-, vide cheque No.019235 dated 26.07.2016. However, the said letter is totally illegal, null and void and the said letter is totally against terms and conditions mentioned in application/brochure of scheme and in this letter, no reason has been given by the respondents as to why amount has been refunded and the complainant never requested for refund of amount and the respondents have arbitrarily without any justification and reason refunded the amount of Rs.1,52,000/- to the complainant and in the said letter, it is no where mentioned that the allotment of plot No.52 of 125 Sq. Yards is cancelled nor any reasons for refund has been mentioned. The said letter is totally against terms and conditions and policy of the PUDA. Moreover, no reason has been mentioned in the said letter as to why the amount has been refunded to the complainant as mentioned above. The complainant never requested to respondents regarding cancellation of allotment, rather complainant has been requesting and also personally meet the officer of respondents through various visits for issuance of allotment letter and it was also requested in the registered letter so sent by the complainant, which the respondents were requested to issue letter of intent/allotment letter of plot No.52, so that complainant may be able to deposit the balance amount of price of the allotment of the plot. The letter issued by the OP is illegal and arbitrary and the same is not binding upon complainant rather the said letter is liable to be recalled. The complainant has been unnecessarily harassed resulting into mental harassment, monetary loss due to illegal acts and deeds of respondents and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to recall the letter dated 04.08.2016 and further OPs be directed to issue allotment letter against Form No.1401/Plot No.52, measuring 125 Sq. Yards at Old Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar to complainant and got deposit balance amount from complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment, humiliation and mental tension caused to the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared and filed joint 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. It is submitted that the complainant failed to submit the required documents in the office of the answering respondent upto 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 Officer, 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.” The next question raised by the OP that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and even this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and further alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant applied for the alleged plot and also deposited the amount and draw of plots was held on 24.12.2015, which the complainant's name for plot No.52 of 125 Sq. Yards was shown as successful candidate. The other allegations as 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.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1- to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

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

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

7. Before proceed on merit, we like to take a legal question raised by the learned counsel for the OPs, in regard to Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum. Though this objection has not been raised by the OP in its written reply, but being a legal objection, it can be taken into consideration even suo-moto. So, accordingly, we considered the submission of learned counsel for the OPs and find that the value of the plot so agreed to purchase by the complainant is more than 20 lacs. As per version of the complainant, a plot measuring 125 Sq. Yards was allotted to the complainant in a draw, bearing Plot No.52 and the price of the said plot was Rs.12,500/- per Sq. Yard. If we multiply 125 X Rs.12,500/-, then it comes to Rs.15,62,500/- and further the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and total comes to Rs.20,62,500/-. The total value as well as services availed by the complainant from OP comes to Rs.15,62,500/- and compensation claimed by the complainant is Rs.5,00,000/-, so, the total value comes to Rs.20,62,500/-, which is beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum, because the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum is only upto Rs.20,00,000/- and these observations has been obtained from a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2017 CPJ 1 (NC), titled as “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 12(1)(c)- Pecuniary Jurisdiction- Interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 12(1)(c)- Pecuniary Jurisdiction-Determination-consideration paid or agreed to be paid by consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in complaint, to be determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.”

8. In view of the above detailed discussion, we find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed and it is further ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction. 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 Jyotsna Karnail Singh

25.03.2019 Member President