| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 149 of 08.06.2023 Decided on : 21-08-2024 Sanjiv Kumar S/o Sat Paul, R/o Near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ........Complainant Versus Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bhatinda, through its Estate Officer. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh.Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Smt.Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.Baljeet Singh, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh.N.P Singh, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Sanjiv 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). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party launched a scheme in the year 2011 in which it alotted free hold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Faridkot. Applications were demanded with 10% earnest money of the total amount. It is alleged that the complainant applied for 250 sq. yard plot through application No.1881 and Rs.1,25,000/- as earnest money were paid to opposite party. As per the scheme 'the draw of lots' was conducted on 24.10.2011 at Faridkot. He was successful in the draw of residential plots and after that opposite party issued allotment letter No.PUDA-EO/BTI/2012/2714 dated 28.5.2012 and allotted plot No.526 measuring 250 sq. yards to the complainant. The complainant paid next all intallments as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. As such, he paid Rs.14,36,783/- as full value of the plot and he is covered within the definition of 'consumer'. It is further alleged that as per the terms of the scheme, the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the complainant/allotee alter completion or development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier, but tiil date no development work has been completed at the spot by opposite party as per the terms of the scheme. The complainant also obtained a copy of RTI from his sources in which it was clearly mentioned that opposite party did not apply for NOC to PPCB till 2018. Moreover no development work has been completed by opposite party at the site as per terms and conditions or brochure. Even till date, the site was not fully devolped and basic amenities were not provided. It is further alleged that in the orders and Judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court in CWP-4108 of 2016 titled Ram Kishan & Others Versus State of Haryana, held that “Without Completing the development works and providing all the basic amenities and facilities, if any possession is given by any State Authority, then it could not deemed a valid and legal possession." Opposite party is violating the orders of Hon'ble High Court. The complainant and other plot holders requested opposite party to complete the development and alter that to hand over the possession of the plot or to refund the amount deposited with interest by them as per meeting held on 2.1.2017 under the chairmanship of Add. Chief Secretary Punjab, to compliance with the orders of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in which it was decided that in case opposite party failed to deliver the possession within time prescribed in brochure, it will provide 12% interest to allotee on 25% amount deposited by the allotee, but in vains. It is also alleged that Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 2.7.2019 in CC No.237 Of 2019 title Bikram Singh Thapa Versus PUDA has allowed the complaint of same site of opposite party with following directions:- i. To refund amount of Rs.27,54,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization; ii. To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant including litigation expenses. Moreover in this matter payment has been made by opposite party by way of execution filed by DH at Hon'ble State Commission (EA/473/2019) and DH withdraws the Execution as fully satisfied after receiving full and final payment from opposite party. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to refund Rs.14,36,783/- alongwith 18% interest as opposite party failed to hand over the possession of the plot within specified period and kept the money of the complainant more than ten years and also failed to provide amenities in addition to Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raising legal objections that the complainant is not 'consumer' under 'Act'. The complainant has no cause-of-action to file the complaint. As per record, he has not approached, demanded or applied for refund of his deposited amount till date before opposite party. In the absence of any such request, no refund can be made to the complainant. There is a set procedure for surrender of allotted plot and for refund of deposited amount. The complainant has not exhausted that procedure. He has no locus-standi to file the complaint and complaint is not maintainable. It is not within limitation. As per terms and conditions of the brochure as well as allotment letter, in case of any dispute, the matter shall be decided by Sole Arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator PUDA, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and also U/s 174 of the PUDA Act. That complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has concealed the material and true facts from this Forum. As such, he is not entitled to any relief. The complaint involves intricate questions of law and facts. It cannot be decided in summary proceedings by this Forum. The complainant is estopped to file the complaint by his act, conduct and acquiescence. He has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint to his knowledge, so he be ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as penalty under 'Act'. On merits, opposite party has pleaded that opposite party allotted plot No.526 measuring 250 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.2714 dated 28.5.2012. As such, the complainant is bound by this letter. Thereafter the complainant did not deposit 15% amount i.e. Rs.1,71,875/- as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. A letter No.6111 dated 25.9.2012 was issued to him for personal hearing before cancellation of the plot. The complainant did not deposit 15% amount in time, so his allotment of plot was cancelled vide office order No.6605-6607 dated 22.10.2012 as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. He filed an appeal against the cancellation order dated 22.10.2012 before the Addl. Chief Administrative, BDA Bathinda on 31.10.2012 that was allowed on 22.2.2013. All these facts were concealed by the complainant in this complaint. Opposite party has also mentioned term No.10 of the allotment letter dated 28.5.2012. Opposite party has already completed the development work at the site and provided all the basic amenities. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party has reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 4.6.2023, (Ex.C8) and documents, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C7). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarun Aggarwal dated 28.8.2023, (Ex.OP1/1) and documents, (Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/6). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admitted facts are that opposite party launched a scheme in the year 2011 for allotment of free hold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Faridkot. The complainant applied for 250 sq. yard plot and deposited earnest money of Rs.1,25,000/- on 27.8.20211 vide property ledger, (Ex.C2). The complainant has paid Rs.14,36,783/- value of the plot vide property ledger, (Ex.C2). As per the condition No.10 of the allotment letter, (Ex.C1), the possession of the plot should be handed over to the complainant/allotee alter completion or development works at site in a period of 18 months from the date of issuance a allotment letter. For sake of convenience, this Condition is reproduced as under for ready reference:- “Possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allotee alter completion of development works at site in a period of 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter. In case of 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, the Authority shall refund the amount deposited by the applicant after deducting 10% of the amount deposited.” Opposite party has failed to complete development work at the site allotted to the complainant, failed to handover him allotted plot and also failed to issue him any completion certificate regarding development work at the site. The complainant has also produced on record photographs, (Ex.C4 to Ex.C6) to prove that opposite party has failed to complete development work and provide all the basic amenities at the site. Counsel for opposite party has argued that opposite party has placed on record letter dated 28.3.2018, (Ex.OP1/5) in which it is mentioned that there is delay in development work, but in the present time, all types of the development have been done and in this regard, an advertisement has been published in newspaper dated 29.11.2017 and opposite party directed the complainant to take possession of the plot and build it after sanctioning Map...”, but opposite party has not produced on record any postal receipt to prove that it has sent this letter to the complainant. Mere advertisement in newspaper cannot prove that opposite party had done the development work or provided the basic amenities at the site allotted to the complainant. Opposite party cannot take benefit of these self serving documents when it could not bring on file any document that development work was done and basic amenities were provided. Even affidavit of Tarun Aggarwal, Estate Officer, (Ex.OP1/1) is not verified. In view of what has been discussed above, it proves that opposite party has failed to complete development work and provide basic amenities at the site allotted to the complainant and handover the possession of allotted plot to the complainant and this act of opposite party proves unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party. Opposite party is further directed to refund an amount of Rs.14,36,783/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to incomplete quorum and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 21-08-2024 - (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
