DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 31 of 03-02-2021

Decided on : 13-04-2023

1. Kanwaljeet Singh aged about 43 years;

2. Parwinder Singh, aged about 47 years;

   Sons of Sh. Darshan Singh, Residents of H.No. B-49/157, Purani Tripuri Town, Patiala.

........Complainants

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA Complex, (now Bathinda Development Authority), Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Cheif Administrator/ Estate Officer, Bathinda.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Ish Kumar, Advocate

For opposite party : Sh. N.P. Singh, Advocate

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Kanwaljeet Singh & Parwinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the opposite party launched a scheme for development of colony at Sugar Mill Site, Faridkot known as PUDA ENCLAVE and as per scheme, residential plots were to be allotted by way of draw of plots. The said scheme started on 3.6.2013 and closed on 2.7.2013. As per scheme, applications were invited from the general public for the allotment of the plots of different size under different categories. Initially, one Parminder Singh s/o Gurnam Singh alias Gurman Singh, also applied for a residential plot measuring 200 sq, yards under general category in the said scheme and deposited application no. 0335 duly completed in all respects, alongwith earnest money to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- and submitted the application well within time.

3. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant Parminder Singh received a letter no. PUDA EO/2013/10461 dated 24.12.2013 i.e. Letter of Intent dated 24.12.2013 whereby, opposite party informed applicant Parminder Singh that the draw of the aforesaid scheme was held on 30.8.2013 and said Parminder Singh has been proved to be a successful applicant for the allotment of plot measuring 200 sq. yards under general category and further directed him to deposit 15% more amount i.e. Rs.2,70,000/- more to complete 25% of the price of the plot, within 30 days from the date of receipt of Letter of Intent, however, this period can be extended upto 180 days, on making a written request within 30 days from the date of issue of Letter of Intent as per condition no.5 and further surcharge and penal interest for the delayed period will be charged. Otherwise, earnest money already deposited shall be forfeited. Apart from above 15% amount equal to Rs.2,70,000/- (to complete 25%), it was also directed by the opposite party to pay Rs.2% of the cost of the plot i.e. Rs.36,000/- as "The Punjab State Cancer and Drug Addiction Treatment Infrastructure Fund", within 30 days of the issue of said letter.

4. It is alleged that due to some unavoidable domestic circumstances, said applicant Parminder Singh could not deposit the said demanded amount of 15% equal to Rs.2,70,000/- and 2% equal to Rs.36,000/-, due to which, opposite party vide its letter no.1760 dated 20.6.2014 directed said Parminder Singh to appear and disclose the reasons for non-deposit of demanded amount and in compliance thereof, said Parminder Singh appeared before the opposite party and disclosed the reasons thereof, but the opposite party being not satisfied with the reasons disclosed by applicant- Parminder Singh, vide letter no. 6187-91 dated 27.8.2014 cancelled the aforesaid plot and forfeited the earnest money of 10% (application money deposited by the applicant Parminder Singh). Parminder Singh filed appeal before the Appellate Authority of the opposite party with a request to release/restore his plot and that he is ready and willing to deposit the demanded amount alongwith interest, penal interest etc. etc., if any, and after hearing applicant-Parminder Singh, Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.12.2014 ordered for the releasing/ restoring plot of applicant-Parminder Singh in his favour subject to deposit of demanded amount and interest, costs and penal interest etc., which were deposited by said Parminder Singh and accordingly, aforesaid plot of said Parminder Singh was resumed/restored in his favour. Accordingly, applicant Parminder Singh has deposited the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with the opposite party, alongwith Rs.36,000/-. However, the receipts pertaining to deposit of application money to the tune of 10% equal to Rs.1,80,000/- as well as subsequent 15% equal to Rs.2,70,000/- and of 2% equal to Rs.36,000/- have been lost from the custody of said applicant Parminder Singh, and the record pertaining to deposit of the said payments is also lying with the opposite party.

5. It is further alleged that thereafter, the present complainants, purchased the aforesaid plot from said Parminder Singh/original allottee and applied for the transfer of the said plot in their favour. After getting all the formalities completed from the original allottee as well as from the complainants and also by getting the requisite amount of Rs. 3330/- on account of processing fee and Rs. 44,420/- as transfer fee and Rs.580/-, totaling Rs.48,330/- vide receipt dated 6.8.2015, the opposite party transferred the aforesaid plot in favour of the present complainants vide its letter no. PUDA/BATHINDA/2016/296 (may be 216) dated 16.2.2016 on the same terms & conditions of letter of intent originally issued to the applicant-Parminder Singh.

6. It is also alleged that it is mentioned that at the time of purchasing the aforesaid plot and depositing the aforesaid amount for transfer of the aforesaid plot in favour of the complainants, the complainants asked the opposite party regarding the issuance of allotment letter and also regarding the progress of the work and also regarding the delivery of possession of the proposed plot to which, the opposite party conveyed that all work shall be completed/done as per terms & conditions as mentioned in the brochure as well as mentioned in the Letter of Intent. As per scheme, the possession of the plot was to be given within two years after completion of development work of colony or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. In this way, the present complainants stepped into the shoes of original allottee and became the consumers of the opposite party qua the aforesaid plot and were/are equally entitled/liable to get the benefit/abide by the terms and conditions of Letter of Intent as directed by the opposite party.

7. As per the terms and conditions of scheme, as mentioned in the brochure, payment schedule was as under:

   For Initial 25% : (i) 10% as earnest money at the time of making application.

   ii) Payment of 15% price of the plot is to be made within 30 days of issue of the Letter of Intent to complete 25% price of plot.

   iii) In case of failure to make the 15% payment within stipulated period, allotment is liable to be cancelled. However, this period can be got extended upto 180 days..............

   For balance payment of 75% : (i) The balance 75% of the tentative price of plot, can either be paid in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from issue of allotment letter or in 6 equated half-yearly installments alongwith an interest @ 12% per annum. First Installment shall become due after one year from the date of issue of allotment letter.

8. It is further alleged that the possession of the plot was agreed to be handed over to the respective allottee after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. When a period of more than 18 months had already been elapsed, and complainants found that the development work at the site has not been started so far and despite repeated enquires from the opposite party, it was conveyed that development work shall be started very soon and shall be completed accordingly as there is some dispute between Sugar Mill (earlier owner of the site) and them. Finally, since the complainants were in need of residential house at Faridkot, and on the other hand, there was no likelihood of start and completion of development work as the opposite party did not make any effort to remove the machinery of the Sugar Mill, which is still lying at the site and further did not make any effort to start the development work, so under compelled circumstances, the complainants few days back, approached the opposite party to make the refund of the entire amount deposited by them to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.2,70,000/-, Rs.36,000/- and Rs.48,330/-, totaling Rs.5,34,330/- as aforesaid, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits, till its actual realization, but to no effect, rather the opposite party had been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other.

9. On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have prayed for directions to the opposite party to make refund of the amount of Rs,5,34,330/-, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits, till realization, Rs.3,00,000/- as damages/ compensation on account of mental tension, agony and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expences.

10. Upon notice, opposite party put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complainants are not consumers; complainants have no +cause-of-action to file the present complaint; complainants have no locus-standi ; complaint is not within limitation that as per terms and conditions of the brochure as well as letter of intent for allotment, in case of any dispute the matter shall be decided by Sole Arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator PUDA, so this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and also barred u/s 174 of the PUDA Act. That the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. The complainants have not come to this Commission with clean hands and have concealed the material and true facts; complaint involves intricate questions of law and facts, which cannot be decided in summary proceedings by this Commission : complainants are estopped to file the complaint by their act, conduct and acquiescence; complainants have filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint.

11. On merits, the opposite party has pleaded that opposite party invited applications for allotment of residential plots at PUDA enclave, Sugar Mill Site at Faridkot on the basis of the terms and conditions of the scheme, stated in the brochure. Complainants had not applied for any plot in the said scheme in 2013. As per record, Parminder Singh s/o Gurnam Singh of Ferozpur had applied for a plot of 200 sq. yards vide Form No 335 and deposited the earnest money after going through and understanding the terms and Conditions of the brochure, so he was bound for the same. Opposite party sent a letter of intent for allotment of residential plot to Parminder Singh Gurnam Singh of Ferozpur vides letter No, 10461 dated 24-12-2013.

12. It has been pleaded that in fact, Parminder Singh s/o Gurnam Singh of Ferozpur had applied himself for cancellation of plot and refund of money on 10-04-2014. The opposite party admitted that show cause notice was issued to Parminder Singh s/o Gurnam Singh of Ferozpur vide letter No. 1760 dated 20-06-2014. Parminder Singh had again applied for refund of money on 6-08-2014. So on his request, allocation of the plot form No, 0335 was cancelled vide letter No, 6187-91 dated 27-08-2014. Order for restoration of allocation dated 17-12-2014 was passed conditionally that the appellant Parminder Singh will deposit the balance amount with interest and penalty within 15 days failing which cancellation order dated 27-08-2014 will be remained intact. As per record, Parminder Singh deposited Rs. 1,80,000/- as earnest money, as 10 % of the plot amount on 27-01-2013. He also deposited Rs.2,70,000/- as 15 % of the plot amount on 14-01-2015 to complete the 25 % amount of the plot, which was due on 23-01-2014 after a delay of 356 days. He also deposited penal interest + surcharge + Add interest of Rs 47402/- (Totaling Rs. 55510/-) on 27-07-2015. No amount of Rs 36,000/- was deposited by Parminder Singh, as alleged.

13. The opposite party admitted that complainants purchased the allocation of plot from said Parminder Singh and a Re-letter of intent was issued to the complainants vide letter No. 296 dated 16-02-20168. As per Condition No.14 of the said letter of intent vide letter No. 10461 dated 24-12-13, it is clearly stated that "Possession of plot shall be handed over after completion of the development work at site or 18 months from the date of issue of allotment letter whichever is earlier". The complainants never approached the opposite party at any time nor they applied for or moved any application for refund of money. After controverting all other avements of the complainants, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

14. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 3.2.2021 (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9).

15. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Kamaljeet Singh dated 17.11.2021 (Ex. OP-1/5) and the documents (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/4).

16. Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

18. The contention of the counsel for the complainant was that no development has been carried out by the opposite party at spot. He submitted that no evidence has been produced on file by the opposite party to prove that site in question has been developed or opposite party ever offered to deliver possession of plot to allottees/complainant. The opposite party had only got allocated a piece of land and thereafter received amount from the inocent citizens and failed to deliver possession after developing the same.

19. A perusal of Clause '1 of Ex. C-2 under the heading 'Possession and Ownership', it is clearly written that possession of the plot shall be handed over to the alottee after completion of development works at site in a period of one year from the date of issuance of allotment letter and incase for any reason PUDA is unable to deliver the possession of plots in stipulated period, allottee shall have a right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer, in that case, the Authority shall refund the amount deposited by the applicant after deducting 10% of the amount deposited. Similarly as per Condition No.14 of letter of intent (Ex. C-3) Possession of plot shall be handed over after completion of the development work at site or 18 months from the date of issue of allotment letter whichever is earlier.

20. The only argument of learned counsel for opposite party is that they are ready to refund the amount after deducting 10% of the amount to the complainant on application of the complainant. However, this Commission is of the view that since there is no fault on the part of the complainant in any manner, as such, opposite party has no right to deduct 10% amount from the amount deposited by the complainant. Thus it seems that the opposite party is not interested to develop the area allotted to the complainant and is bent upon to deduct 10% of the amount deposited by him only on the basis of Clause No. 1 of Ex. C-2. Since the opposite party failed to development the colony and deliver possession within stipulated time, as such, the opposite party has no right to deduct the amount rather it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party to have voluntarily offered to refund the entire amount to the complainant. Having failed to refund the amount after their failure to develop colony and deliver possession clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

21. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,34,330/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization of the entire amount. No order as to cost.

22. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

23. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

24. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    13-04-2023

    (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member