BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.270 of 2014

Date of Instt. 12.08.2014

Date of Decision :16.04.2015

Goverdhan Dutt Sharma aged about 71 years son of Durga Dass, R/o H.No.46, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust through its Chairman.

2. The Executive Officer, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Near Sky Lark Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RR Neeraj Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.SKS Chhabra Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that opposite parties had floated a scheme known as Surya Enclave Extension (94.97 Acre) Development Scheme and in that scheme, the complainant had applied for the allotment of a plot of 100 Sq.yards in the pensioners category as the complainant wanted to shift to Jalandhar at the said plot. The complainant is retired government officer and is of 71 years of age and is heart patient. On 2.4.2012, the complainant was informed by the opposite party No.2 regarding his allotment of plot in the above said scheme, letter bearing No.4574 was received by the complainant from the opposite parties, where it has been declared by the parties that the complainant was allotted a plot No.154-C, in 94.97 Acre through resolution No.33 dated 8.11.2011 and opposite party has also issued a memo No.8/31/11(9)-1SS2/3213 dated 7.12.11 drawn by Jalandhar Improvement Trust, where mode of payment was also scribed. That as per assurance and instruction given by JIT, the complainant deposited Rs.1,70,000/- on 7.9.2011 as earnest money and remaining amount was paid on the instructions and demanding of the opposite parties. The first installment was paid of Rs.3,32,950/-, second installment of Rs.3,18,750/-, third installment of Rs.3,06,000/-, fourth installment of Rs.2,93,250/- and fifth installment of Rs.2,80,500/- was deposited by the complainant including interest demanded by the opposite parties with the installments. After depositing the money, the complainant approached to the JIT authorities for the possession of the plot, but it lingered on the matter on the one or the other pretext. The complainant came to know that even the trust has not got full possession of the 94.97 acre scheme and matter is pending before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. As per the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant has deposited his hard earned income from his job with the opposite parties for his betterment, but the opposite parties has not given any possession of the plot to the complainant. On 23.6.2014, through a letter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for returning his money deposited with them through a request letter, but no efforts was made to return the amount deposited by the complainant with opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund him the deposited amount of Rs.16,92,550/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that due to the status quo order granted by the Hon'ble High Court in the C.W.P.No.11234 of 2011 and Civil Writ Petition No.16324 of 2011 qua the property under acquisition and allotted to the complainant, the possession of the property was not delivered to the complainant. It is further pleaded that payment of installments is matter of record. It is further pleaded that the full possession of 94.97 acres scheme is not with the opposite parties due to the matter pending before the Hon'ble High Court but it is worth while to mention that this fact is also very much in the knowledge of the complainant. It is mentioned that as per the terms and conditions contained in the brochure there is no clause to refund the money back to the complainant. Even it was held by the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition No.1684 of 2014 titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab in which the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court clearly held that applicant is not entitled to seek refund of the earnest money in any case. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.CC to CL and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/B and Ex.OP3/C and evidence of opposite parties closed by order.

5 We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that complainant was allotted plot of 100 sq.yards in Surya Enclave Extension Scheme and complainant was intimated in this regard vide letter dated 23.12.2011 Ex.OP2/B. Ex.CC is allotment letter dated 2.4.2012. Complainant has deposited Rs.16,92,450/- with opposite parties vide draft/receipt/cheques Ex.CC to CI. In its written reply, opposite party has not disputed this fact and simply pleaded that payments are matter of record. Although in the written reply, the complainant has mentioned the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.1684 of 2014 titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab but copy of judgment passed in this Writ Petition has neither been annexed with the written reply nor produced at the time of arguments. So, we are not aware of the facts of that case. In the present case despite depositing of huge amount by the complainant with the opposite party trust, it is not in position to deliver possession of the allotted plot to the complainant. As per clause 6 and 7 of the allotment letter, the allottee could get possession of the plot after executing an agreement with the trust after payment of 1/4th amount. In the present case, according to the own admission of the opposite parties, the trust is not in possession of entire scheme area and due to status quo order passed by Hon'ble High Court qua the property under acquisition and allotted to the complainant, the possession of the properly was not delivered to him i.e complainant. The opposite parties have specifically pleaded this fact in preliminary objection No.4 of its written reply. So when opposite parties are not in a position to deliver the possession of the allotted plot to the complainant due to pending litigation before hon'ble High Court, the complainant can not be made to wait indefinitely. It is not known when the writ petition mentioned in the written reply shall be finally decided by Hon'ble High Court. It is in the affidavit of the complainant that he is 71 years of age and has applied for the plot in pensioner category. So at this stage, his hard earned money can not be retained by the opposite party trust without any fault on part of the complainant.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party trust is directed to refund Rs.16,92,450/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. It is clarified that interest amount is being granted by way of compensation. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.04.2015 Member Member President