DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

CC No.155 of 11-08-2021

Decided on : 13-4-2023

Rishu Kumar S/o Sh. Ratan Lal C/o Shri Nath Gift Palace, Choti Mandi, Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal Haryana.

​........Complainant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, (Now BDA) PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road Bathinda through its Estate Officer.

.......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. Deepak Kansal, Advocate.

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

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Rishu Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has 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 complainant is that the opposite party launched a scheme in the year 2011 in which the opposite party allotted free hold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Faridkot. For this purpose applications were demanded with 10% earnest money of the total amount. The complainant applied for 500 Sq. Yard plot through application No. 0698 and Rs. 2,50,000/- as earnest money were paid to opposite party. As per the scheme "the draw of lots" was conducted on 25.10.2011 at Faridkot and the complainant was successful in the draw of residential plots and after that the opposite party issued allotment letter no. PUDA-EO/BTI/2012/2312 dated 08.05.2012 and allotted plot No. 346-CPF to the complainant. The complainant paid next 15% of total amount of Rs. 4,68,750/- as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.

3. It is alleged that as per terms of the scheme the possession of the plot should be handed over to the complainant/allotee after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. But till date no development work has been completed by the opposite party, as per terms of the scheme. The complainant also obtained a copy of RTI from his sources in which it was clearly mentioned that opposite party even did not applied for NOC to P.P.C.B. till 2018. Moreover, no development work has been completed by the opposite party at the site as per terms and conditions of the brochure. Even till today, the site was not fully devolved and basic amenities were not provided.

4. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant have prayed directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by the complainant Rs.7,18,750/- along with 18% interest and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. Upon notice the opposite party put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complainant is not a consumer; he has no cause of action and locus standi to file the omplaint; as per record, the complainant has not approached, demanded or applied for refund of his deposited amount and in the absence of any such request, no refund can be made to the complainant. That there is a set procedure for surrender of allotted plot and for refund of deposited amount and the complainant has not exhausted that procedure. That as per terms and conditions of the brochure as well as allotment letter, incase 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 u/s 174 of the PUDA Act. That the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party; complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material and true facts; complaint involves intricate questions of law and facts, which cannot be decided in summary proceedings by this Commission; complainant is estopped to file the complaint by his act, conduct and acquiescence and that the complainant has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint.

6. On merits, opposite party has admitted that opposite party invited applications for allotment of residential plots at PUDA enclave, Baba Farid University Site (Under OUVGL Scheme) at Faridkot on the basis of the terms and conditions of the scheme, stated in the brochure. It has been pleaded that as per the said scheme, the complainant had applied for a plot of 500 sq. yards vide Form No.0698 after going through and understanding the terms and conditions of the brochure, so he is bound for the same. The opposite party admitted that draw of lots was conducted on 25-10-2011 and opposite party allotted plot No. 346- CPF measuring 500 sq, yards in PUDA enclave, at Baba Farid University Site (Under OUVGL) Scheme) at Faridkot to the complainant on the basis of terms and conditions of the allotment letter No.2312 dated 08-05-2012. Thereafter the complainant deposited 15% amount i.e. Rs.4,68,750/- as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

7. It has been pleaded that as per term No. 10 of the allotment letter dated 08-05-2012, "Possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allotee after completion of development works at site in a period of 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter. In case for any reason PUDA apable to deliver the possession of plot in stipulated period, allotee shall have a fight 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." The opposite party has already completed the development work at the site and provided all the basic amenities. The opposite party has also delivered the possession of the plots to all the allotees. The complainant has failed to deposit the installments and he was defaulter. So the opposite party issued various show cause notices to the complainant under sections 45 (1) and 45 (2) of the PUDA Act vide letters Nos. 1944 dated 29-04-2015, 3235 dated 9-5-2017, 4692 dated 14-07-2017 for appearance of the complainant and to deposit dues but he never replied to the said notices nor he appeared before the opposite party any time. According to the report of superintending engineer BDA Bathinda, the development work has been completed. All the basic amenities have already been provided there.

8. The opposite party further pleaded that if the complainant was not interested in said scheme, he could file for his refund of money as per the terms and conditions of the letter of intent as per rules of PUDA/BDA, but he has, not approached, demanded or applied for refund of his deposited amount till today. In the absence of any such request, no refund can be made to the complainant. In further reply, the opposite party reiterated its version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7).

10. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwinder Kaur dated 15.6.2022 (Ex.OP-1/7) and documents (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/6).

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

12. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

13. To prove his case, the only contention of the counsel for the complainant was that since no development has been carried out by the opposite party at spot which is itself proved from letter Ex. C-4 under Right to Information Act, as per which Punjab Pollution Control Board, Farodkot, has clearly written that no such direction/approval has been sought by department of PUDA so far meaning thereby that 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.

14. A perusal of Clause '1 of Ex. C-1 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 in the allotment letter (Ex. C-2), clause '10' also states that possession of plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site in a period of 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter. In case for any reason, PUDA is unable to deliver the possession of plot in stipulated period, allottee shall have a right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer, in that case, Authority shall refund the amount deposited by the applicant after deducting 10% of the amount deposited. The complainant has also attached photographs Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6 of the site of the colony of the opposite party, which clearly show that no development work has been caried out at site by the opposite party and said photographs have not been denied and controverted by the opposite party meaning thereby 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. 10 of Ex. C-2.

15. 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. 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.

16. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 7,18,750/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization of the entire amount. No order as to cost.

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

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

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

    Announced :

    12-04-2023

    ( Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member