BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.29 of 2017

                                                               New CC No.477 of 2022

                                                               (Remanded Back) 21.11.2022

                                                                   Date of Inst. 23.12.2022

                                                                   Date of Decision: 04.09.2023

Harpreet Singh aged about 41 yrs S/o Onkar Singh R/o H. No.373, Greater Kailash, Jalandhar through his general power of attorney Onkar Singh S/o Sh Randhir Singh R/o 373, Greater Kailash, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Jalandhar through its Chairman.

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

3.       Paramjit Singh S/o Mohan Singh R/o H. No.646-B, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar.

4.       Anshul Juneja son of Krishan Juneja resident of Krishna Soap Factory, Cercular Road, Shivaji Colony, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Haryana.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. B. S. Saini, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                   None for OP No.3 and OP No.4.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                    The instant complaint has been remanded back by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 21.11.2022, whereby the order of this Commission dated 12.01.2021 had been set-aside and further, a direction was given to this Commission to allow the complainant to implead all necessary parties and also allow to tender necessary evidence by the parties which are necessary for consideration of the dispute.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the OPs had floated a scheme known as Surya Enclave Extension (170 Acre) Development Scheme published in the newspaper and in that scheme, the complainant had applied for the allotment of a plot of 500 sq. yards in the general category as the complainant wanted to construct a house at the said plot and shift to the said area as the same was proposed and promised to be approved area with wide roads, big parks and amenities, like domestic gas pipeline of a govt. approved scheme. The complainant applied for plot and on a draw held on 07.02.2004. Originally the said plot No.646-B was allotted to Anshul Juneja and the same was transferred by the OP in the name of the complainant vide letter No.JIT/7632 dated 16.02.2006 on the same terms and conditions, which were published by the OP at the time of allotment. The complainant in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, deposited the total amount i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- lump sum full and final. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the charge of LPG gas pipeline has been deposited by the complainant as per the instructions given by the OP. The said amount was deposited by the complainant on 23.01.2006, vide receipt No.9955 of Sr. No.10216. But the OP has not provided Gas Pipeline facility to the complainant till today. That as per the terms and conditions contained in the letter of allotment, the complainant was entitled to get the agreement executed within 30 days of the issuance of the letter of allotment and further it was promised in the letter of allotment that the OPs shall provide all the development and necessary amenities within a period of 2 ½ years of the letter of allotment and that the complainant can get the possession of the plot after the execution of the agreement of sale. It was further contained in the terms and conditions of the agreement that the complainant was bound to raise construction over the allotted plot within a period of three years from the letter of allotment and that in case of non construction within the stipulated period of three years, the complainant was liable to pay non construction charges and penalties as levied by the OPs. Further it was contained in the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment that constructions can be raised over the plot in question by getting a site plan sanctioned from the OPS. That the purpose of applying for the said plot by the complainant has been rendered frustrated by such non development of the scheme land and not provided gas pipelines to the complainant as stipulated in the terms of the allotment letter. Instead of providing Gas Pipeline to the complainant, the OP has charged an amount of Rs.1,87,500/- as enhancement, Cess Fees of Rs.7500/- and interest on non construction Rs.2,67,750/- illegally from the complainant as under-

a)       Providing Gas Pipe Line          Rs.15,000/-

b)      Enhancement, Cess Fee            Rs.1,95,000/-

c)       Interest charge illegally             Rs.2,73,000/-

          on non construction charges

          JIT seems to have floated the said development scheme in contravention of the Govt. instructions and byelaws without providing the gas pipelines of the scheme land and unduly enriched itself by getting huge amounts from the allottees like the applicant. The complainant has been unduly charged with the price of the gas pipelines and other amount as enhancement etc. and further its installment and interest and other charges. The JIT could not provide gas pipeline to the complainant. The OPs were not in a position to provide the gas pipeline to the complainant. Further the OPs were not in a position to show the providing of basis amenities of sewerage in a water supply in the scheme area and its connection with the plot in question. Further the OPs were not in a position to deny the litigation involving the scheme area. As such, the OPs were deficient in service in not providing the basic facilities for the enjoyment of the possession of the plot nor they had possession of the plot with them and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to provide Gas Pipe Line of Rs.15,000/-, Enhancement, Cess Fee of Rs.1,95,000/- and interest charge illegally on non construction charges of Rs.2,73,000/- and further be directed to pay compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not at all maintainable, hence deserve dismissal and further alleged that no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant against the OPs, for filing the present complaint. That Sh. Onkar Singh son of Sh. Randhir Singh alleged attorney of Harpreet Singh is not competent to file the present complaint as the alleged attorney in her favour is not the legal and valid document. Moreover, Sh. Onkar Singh is not aware about the actual facts of the case, as the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the OPs. That the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and as such, the complainant is liable to be rejected out rightly. It is further alleged that the OPs in order to facilitate the allottees already deposited Rs.1,40,90,000 with the HCL company for installing the gas plant and as well as laying the gas pipe lines in the colony, so that the same will be provided to the inhabitants and the aforesaid company has already installed two bullet gas on the spot for the storage of the gas. The remaining process in this regard is in the process. It is worthwhile to mention here that the installing of the gas plant and as well as laying of gas pipe lines, is a work of very sensitive nature which required extra vigilance as the colony is not properly developed so far hence the installing of the said equipment will became hazards to the inhabitants of the locality as well as the whole city in case any mis-happening of gas leaking will be there. Moreover the process is going on and the OPS have already deposited the required amount with the authorities concerned. The moment of the colony is properly developed and secured from all angles, the OPs after completing all the requisite formalities will issue the gas connection to the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the process for installations of gas plant and laying of gas pipe lines is already in process, but due to precautionary measure the connections are not being distributed to the allottees, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and stated that there is no concern of anything to him in above mentioned appeal case as well as old case which have been lodged by the complainant/Harpreet Singh as he had already sold his ownership of Plot No.646-B, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar to him and lastly prayed to withdraw his involvement in this matter.

5.                Counsel for the OP No.4 suffered a statement that he has nothing to do with the present complaint so he does not want to file any written reply and documents in this case because he is no longer the owner of the said property.

6.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA and Ex.CB and some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and then closed the evidence.

7.                The counsel for the OP/JIT tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and affidavit of E. O. as Ex.OP-B/2 and documents Ex.OP-X and Ex.OP-Y and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

9.                It is admitted and proved that the complainant had applied for allotment of a plot in the Surya Enclave Extension and draw was held. The plot No.646-B was allotted to Anshul Juneja, the original allottee and the same was transferred by the OP in the name of the complainant Harpreet Singh. As per the contention of the complainant, in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was deposited in lump-sum as full and final payment. He has also deposited the charges of LPG gas pipeline, but the OP has not provided gas pipe line facility to the complainant. This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant.

10.              The complaint was allowed by the Ld.Predecessor of this Commission on 12.01.2021 and the same was challenged by the OPs before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission remanded the said complaint observing that the original allottee Anshul Juneja and subsequent purchaser Paramjit Singh Bindra have not been made party as they are necessary party. The complainant was directed to implead all necessary parties and they were also allowed to tender necessary evidence. In compliance of the Order, the parties namely Paramjit Singh and Ashul Juneja were impleaded as OP No.3 and OP No.4. The OP No.3 appeared in person and filed written statement, thereafter he did not appear. The OP No.4 also appeared and made statement on 24.04.2023 that he was earlier the owner of the property in question, but on 16.02.2006 the ownership of the property was transferred to the complainant and he has nothing to do with the present case. So, he does not want to file any written statement.

11.              The OP No.3 namely Paramjit Singh filed written statement alleging that there is no concern of anything to him in the above mentioned case as the complainant had already sold his ownership to him. He is full owner and in possession of the above said property. He has produced on record the sale deed Ex.OP3/1.

12.              The allotment to Anshul Juneja is proved and not disputed. Payment of the installments and the value of the plot has also been proved. Anshul Juneja has sold the property to Harpreet Singh and as per submission of the OP No.3, the property was transferred in the name of Paramjit Singh/OP No.3. Ex.OP3/1 is the sale deed executed by the OP No.1 in favour of Paramjit Singh i.e. OP No.4 on 28.06.2016. As per Jamabandi, also the name of Paramjit Singh Bindra is mentioned in the column of ownership. The complainant Harpreet Singh has written a letter to the OP No.1 making request to the OP No.1 to transfer the plot No.646-B to Paramjit Singh Bindra. It has specifically been mentioned in this document Ex.OPX that the conveyance deed has not been executed as yet. He has also given the self declaration declaring that he has sold this plot to Paramjit Singh Bindra and the same be transferred in favour of Paramjit Singh Bindra. This declaration was given by the complainant being seller and similarly, Paramjit Singh/OP No.4 gave declaration that he has purchased the plot from Harpreet Singh, the complainant and he has also given the declaration. Ex.OP-4 is the letter dated 24.05.2016, whereby the plot was transferred in the name of Paramjit Singh Bindra/OP No.3.

13.              The contention of the complainant is that he had deposited the amount for gas pipeline with the OPs, therefore, he has every right to file the complaint and earlier the complaint was allowed considering the locus-standi of the complainant to file the complaint. But as per the documents i.e. Letter to the OPs by complainant to transfer the land vide Ex.OPX and declaration of seller and purchaser which are the part of Ex.OPX show that he had transferred the plot in favour of OP No.3. He has not produced on record any document to show that he had reserved his right to claim the refund of the amount or the implementation of the agreement regarding gas pipeline. This means that he has sold all his rights to OP No.3. The plot No.646-B was transferred in the name of OP No.3 vide Ex.OP-4. Now OP No.3 is owner in possession of the plot. The OP No.3 has categorically stated that he has no concern with the present case as he is owner in possession of the plot. He has not claimed anywhere that he requires any gas pipeline or he is not aggrieved as gas pipeline was not supplied to them. If he is aggrieved with the said act of OP, he can avail the remedy available under law. The complainant is no more owner of the plot in question as he has already sold the same. Thus, he has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear      their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14.              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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

04.09.2023         Member                          Member             President