BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.122 of 2016

Date of Instt. 15.03.2016

Date of Decision :06.12.2016

Harbans Lal S/o Ram Chand, aged about 77 years, resident of H.No.309, Mohalla Ripu Daman Pura, Nabha, District Patiala.

..........Complainant

Versus

The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman/ Executive Officer.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Anil Kumar, Authorized Representative of the complainant.

Sh.Manoj Dhamija Adv., counsel for OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by complainant Harbans Lal, wherein alleged that the complainant has came to know that opposite party had floated a development scheme known as Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue (70.5Acre). Allured by the salient features of the said scheme advertised, the complainant applied for allotment of a plot measuring 200 Sq.Yards in the pensioner category, exclusively for the purpose of his resident after constructing a house thereon. The complainant applied to the opposite party for a plot and as such, was successful in lucky draw held on 23/8/2007 and was allotted plot No. 72-A of 200 Sq.Yards, presumably with dimensions of 30 feet of 60 feet, vide allotment letter dated 19.11.2007. As per the said allotment letter, total cost of the plot in question was to the tune of Rs. 11,52,700/- including miscellaneous charges i.e. interest extra. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the guidelines of local government for the approved colonies and under the schemes of Improvement Trust/ PUDA, the dimensions of such plots of 200 sq.yards are 30 feet of 60 feet. The complainant thereafter regularly made all the payments in respect of plot measuring 200 sq.yards, as per schedule mentioned in allotment letter and completed all the formalities required by the opposite party. As such, as per the demands raised by the opposite party, the complainant made the entire sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 11,52,000/- upto 19/5/2010.

2. That after allotment of the plot in question, the complainant visited the site to see development there. However, to utter surprise, the complainant came to know about the fact that the plot allotted to him is not in a proper shape i.e. with faulty dimensions (four unequal sides) and actual area of the plot is far less than 200 Sq.yards. but on the other hand, the opposite party had received the entire sale consideration from the complainant for an area measuring 200 Sq.yards. As such, the complainant moved an application on 10/8/2011, under RTI ACT 2005 before the opposite party to apprise him, the exact dimensions/ area of the plot allotted in favour of the complainant. In response to letter dated 10/8/2011, the opposite party vide letter No. JIT/597 dated 9/9/2011 intimated the complainant regarding dimensions of the said plot as length 36 feet and 6 inch, 55 feet, width 30 feet. After receiving the said information from the opposite party, the complainant got prepared the plan from the renowned architect. The complainant was shocked when he got calculated the exact area of the above said plot, according to dimensions given by opposite party. Since, exact area of the plot came out to be 152.44 sq.yards instead of 200 sq.yards, as such, with so faulty dimensions, construction thereupon was not feasible. It was brought to the notice of the complainant by the architect concerned that the plot in question with those two side dimensions differing by 50% is defaced i.e. non uniform/ triangular shape. Thereafter the complainant again moved an application on 22/10/2012 to the opposite party with a request to relocate him to some other alternative plot of exact area measuring 200 Sq.Yards but all in vain and then complainant again sought information under RTI Act 2005. The complainant made all efforts but nothing was done by the opposite party and ultimately complainant served a legal notice dated 9/12/2013 but its vague reply was given by the opposite party and in responding to letters of the complainant, the opposite party always replied that no plot having measurement of 200 Sq.Yards is available and as such, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and thus find no other alternative except to file the present complaint and accordingly this complaint filed with the prayer that to allot and deliver physical possession of an alternative plot of 200 Sq.Yards. in place of the plot in dispute with proper dimensions/ shape in Maharaja Ranjit Singh Avenue and further directed to pay suitable interest on total amount of Rs. 11,52,700/- for the period of delay i.e. 19/11/2010 till physical possession of the correct plot with the dimensions referred to above, is actually delivered and to pay compensation on account of increase in building construction cost, which amounts to nearly Rs. 6,00,000/- and further directed the opposite party to pay compensation on account of mental tension as well as physical harassment amounting to Rs. 2,20,000/- and further directed to waive all non-construction charges to be imposed by the opposite party due to non construction of building upto prescribed time and further directed the opposite party to allow the complainant to take three years further time to complete the construction of house, on the plot without charging any non-construction charges.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party and accordingly opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form rather complaint become infructuous and further averred that complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the answering opposite party and even complainant is trying to harass the answering opposite party by filing present complaint and further alleged that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant is barred by his own act, conduct, omissions and commissions to file the present complaint and even complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands. On merits, Para No. 1,2,3, 5 and 8 have been admitted by the opposite party whereas the allegation of remaining paras are categorically denied and further submitted that the details of procedure of department are mentioned in detail in the allotment letter produced by the complainant himself. As per clause No.15 that at time of demarcation the size of plot can vary either way, could decrease or increase and the allottee is bound to accept the same. The complainant is just trying to concoct a false story to get illegal gains and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C15 and closed the evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Jatinder Singh, Executive Officer Ex. OPA 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. After taking into consideration, the submissions of respective counsel for the parties and for the evidence, we came to the conclusion that the factum of Para No. 1 to 3, 5 and 8 are admitted by the opposite party, so it means that the case of the complainant in regard to advertisement of some plots vide advertisement Ex. C1 for different categories of persons and it is also admitted that plot No. 72-A of 200 Sq.Yards. presumably with the dimensions of 30 feet * 60 feet allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter Ex. C2 and further it is also admitted by opposite party that the complainant has made the entire sale consideration of plot in question i.e. Rs. 11,52,700/- upto 19/5/2010. It is also admitted that the complainant filed an application under RTI Act seeking some information in regard to dimensions of the plot as well as exact measurement of the plot which was sought by the complainant. Now question remains in the air is only whether the complainant is entitled for the plot having dimensions of 30 feet by 60 feet and having total area 200 Sq.Yards. The complainant claimed that as per advertisement, the exact dimensions of the plot was 30 feet by 60 feet but now the opposite party has given the plot having less dimensions i.e. 36.6 feet and 55 feet length, 30 feet width and which was measured by the architect of the complainant and came out 152.44 Sq.foot instead of 200 Sq.Yards. To facilitate this claim, the complainant has brought on the file, a letter send by opposite party to the complainant describing dimensions of the plot is Ex. C3 and site plan of the said plot is Ex. C4 and final refusal on the part of the opposite party that there is no plot available having dimensions of 200 Sq.Yards vide letter Ex. C6. We find that the advertisement Ex. C1 is available on the file and on the basis of such advertisement, the complainant has applied for the plot of 200 Sq. Yards and accordingly the draw was held on 23/8/2007 and admittedly plot No. 72-A of 200 Sq.Yards allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter Ex. C2. This allotment letter is important and crucial document in this case to decide the issue in dispute because all the terms and conditions have been mentioned in the said letter and subject to that terms and conditions, the allotment was made to the complainant and after accepting the terms and conditions of the allotment letter Ex. C2, the complainant deposited the entire amount of Rs. 11,52,700/- uptill 19/5/2010. So, we are not required to go beyond the terms and conditions as mentioned in the allotment letter Ex. C2 and as per Clause 15 of the allotment letter, the allotment of the plot, at the time of demarcation/ delivery of possession can be increased or decreased and accordingly, the payment will be made by the allottee. If we taken into consideration, the above condition No.15 then there remains no doubt that the opposite party is well within the right to decrease or increase the dimensions of the plot if physically is not available on the spot at the time of demarcation. Similar has been happened in this case when demarcation was conducted and less area remains to be given to the complainant and we think that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter he can't go beyond that letter Ex. C2 and if so then there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Therefore we reached to the conclusion that there is no substance in the argument of the representative of the complainant and thus this complaint is without merit and accordingly the complaint is dismissed. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

06.12.2016 Member President