BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint  No.141 of 2017

                                                                   Date of Instt. 09.05.2017

                                                                   Date of Decision: 08.07.2019

Smt. Prem Walia, 77 years old, W/o Sh. Madan Gopal Walia, 4, MIG, Punjab Housing Board Colony, Urban Estate Phase-1, Jalandhar-144001, 9530541864 (M).

                                                                             ..........Complainant

Versus

The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman.

                                                                             ….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh              (President)

                              Smt. Jyotsna                      (Member)

 Present:        Sh. Arun K. Walia, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

                              Sh. M. S. Sood, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

                             Karnail Singh (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP doing the business at Jalandhar for construction of, the marketing of and selling of House/Flat/Plot for consideration to the general public. The OP is developing an area floated a development scheme 949.97 Acre (Surya Enclave Extension), Jalandhar, Punjab in the year 2011 and invited applications from public under several categories for the allotment of plots. The complainant after purchasing a Form bearing No.83276 for Rs.100/- from the OP applied for a residential plot of 100 Sq. Yards under the category of Pensioner and after arranging a finance from Punjab National Bank deposited Rs.1,70,000/- as Earnest Money on 03.09.2011 with the OP through bank of the OP. That luckily a corner plot bearing No.162-C was allotted in the name of the complainant by the OP as per draw of dated 04.11.2011 and confirmed the same, vide its letter No.JIT/2577 dated 23.12.2011. The complainant on the receipt of letter No.JIT/2577 dated 23.12.2011 from the OP, the complainant had complied with all the requirements with the OP.

2.                That after the compliance of all the formalities by the complainant, the OP issued allotment letter bearing No.JIT/4577 dated 02.04.2012, but wrongly mentioned Plot No.162-D, instead of Plot No.162-C and the OP, after several correspondence from the complainant, admitted its fault and corrected the same by writing letter No.JIT/2118 dated 02.09.2014. The complainant as per schedule of payment, as per the letter bearing No.JIT/4577 dated 02.04.2012 paid the installments regularly as per the schedule as enumerated in the letter and had paid Rs.21,56,125/- (1,70,000 + 3,73,250 + 3,50,625 + 3,36,600 +  3,22,575 + 3,08,550 + 2,94,525). The OP has illegally charged interest of Rs.2,10,375/- ( 70,125 + 56,100 + 42,075 + 28,050 + 14,025) on the installments of payment against the terms of allotment letter bearing No.JIT/4577 dated 02.04.2012. The OP, despite several letters of the complainant for the possession of the above mentioned plot, failed to deliver the possession of the above mentioned plot to the complainant. The OP at last wrote an illegal letter bearing No.JIT/2975 dated 03.10.2016 to the complainant demanding the balance amount and asked the complainant to execute the sale agreement, whereas the complainant had already deposited the amount of Rs.21,56,125/- and had already executed the Sale Agreement. The OP has also failed to provide the copy of the sale agreement, which is executed by the complainant with the OP on Stamp Paper of Rs.500/- till date despite the demand of the complainant. Due to the above said facts, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and inconvenience 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 deliver the possession of the allotted Plot No.162-C, 94.97 Acre Scheme, Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar and be also directed to pay Rs.19,99,000/-, in all in terms of money, to the complainant as compensation for mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, financial loss etc. caused due to the above said deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the OP has failed to deliver the possession of the allotted plot No.162-C.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in housing service by the answering OP. Vide letter dated 03.10.2016, the OP has already offered to the complainant, to obtain demarcation of plot in dispute, after clearing the dues payable against plot allotment and execution of statutory documents and further alleged that the delay was caused due to pending litigation before Hon’ble High Court and the matter was decided by the Hon’ble Hight Court in favour of the OP on 22.12.2015. On merits, the factum in regard to allotment of the plot to the complainant as well as deposit of part payment is admitted, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.             In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 Copy of Brochure, Ex.C-2, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-11 Receipts, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-20 Letter and closed the evidence.

5.                The OP availed numerous opportunities, but failed to examine or produce on the file any documents and ultimately, evidence of the OP was closed by order.

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

7.                Before discussing the controversy in dispute, first of all, we like to consider the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, as the complainant himself alleged in Para No.7 and 10 of the complaint that he has already deposited total amount of Rs.21,56,125/-, if virtually the price of the plot is Rs.21,56,125/-, then this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction. So, in order to clarify the actual price of the plot, we have gone through the Allotment Letter Ex.C-4, wherein the total price of the plot i.e. 100 Sq. Yards is mentioned Rs.17,00,000/- and being a corner plot, 10% excess charges means Rs.1,70,000/- and 4% cess of the Government i.e. Rs.74,800/-, means total value of the plot comes to Rs.19,44,800/- and if the complainant deposited the said amount in lump-sum, then there will be no interest, but if he deposited the same on installment, then the OP will charges interest on the total amount and whatsoever interest is to be charged is not to be considered and calculated in the price of the plot, therefore, we find that the total consideration of the plot is Rs.19,44,800/- and if the complainant as alleged paid more than Rs.21,00,000/- that is not the price, rather that may be including interest. So, under these circumstances, we came to conclusion that the value of the plot is Rs.19,44,800/-, therefore this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

8.                Coming to the main issue in dispute, the complainant alleged that he has already deposited the entire amount i.e. price of the plot, but till date the possession has not been given to the complainant rather the OPs are demanding some more amount from the complainant, vide letter dated 03.10.2016, copy of the same is available on the file Ex.C-19, whereby the OP has categorically asked to the complainant and also explained the delay for delivering the possession and further submitted that the remaining amount be deposited and possession be obtained, but instead of depositing the remaining amount whatsoever the complainant filed the instant complaint.

9.                Now, we have to consider whether there is some amount due towards the complainant, if virtually remained due, then there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if entire amount paid, then obviously there will be deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.              We have considered the factum in regard to payment of the  total amount by the complainant, as per allotment letter Ex.C-4, the complainant has to deposit a total amount of Rs.17,75,750/- as a cost of the plot and as per the last page of the allotment letter, if the complainant wants to deposit the said amount by way of installment, then it will be paid by five installments and specific amount of each installment is mentioned/described in the last page of the allotment letter and thereon interest has been also shown and total amount shown in the last column and the date has been also affixed for depositing of the said installments and if there will be any delay, then the complainant will liable to pay interest thereon.

11.              Now, coming to the case of the complainant, who alleged that he deposited an earnest money of Rs.1,70,000/- on 03.09.2011 and its receipt is available on the file Ex.C-2 and further the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.3,73,250/- on 25.04.2012 and after depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs.3,73,250/-, the remaining 75% amount will be deposited by way of five installments, first installment on 01.10.2012, second on 01.04.2013, third on 01.10.2013, forth on 01.04.2014, fifth on 01.10.2014, but the complainant deposited the first installment on 18.09.2012, vide receipt Ex.C-7 and then deposited Rs.3,22,575/- on 20.09.2013, but here the complainant miserably failed to deposit the second installment on 01.04.2013 rather deposited on 20.09.2013, vide receipt Ex.C-9, then complainant required to deposit next installment on 01.04.2014 and accordingly, the complainant deposited installment on 24.03.2014, vide receipt Ex.C-10, then again complainant deposited further installment on 23.09.2014, vide receipt Ex.C-11, the complainant produced on the file by alleging Ex.C-8 as a receipt of payment, but this receipt seems to be not a receipt of payment and as such, it shows that the complainant has not deposited the entire installment, if so, then the OPs are not negligent or deficient in service rather the complainant himself is negligent for not depositing the installment well within time.  

12.              Further, we considered that the OP charges the interest on the installment as agreed and it is not excessive, if any amount is deposited by way of installment, then the complainant is liable to pay interest thereon. If the complainant later on produced the original receipt of alleged Ex.C-8, then the OP will consider it and decide whether it is a receipt of payment, if accepted, then the said amount be calculated in the deposited amount by the complainant, but at this stage, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on the file that he deposited the entire amount and as such, the letter sent by the OP for getting possession, but after depositing the remaining amount is absolutely right and legal one and therefore, there is no deficiency in service, but in the interest of justice, the OP is required to handover the possession of the plot, so allotted to the complainant, but after getting the remaining amount, if any due, by taking into consideration the entire receipts produced on the file by the complainant except Ex.C-8, which will be considered after seeing the original by the OP.

13.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and if there is any due towards the complainant, who will pay the same to the OP and thereafter will get the possession. 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                                     Jyotsna                               Karnail Singh

08.07.2019                            Member                              President