BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.330 of 2014

Date of Instt. 18.09.2014

Date of Decision :03.03.2015

Vinay Arora son of Late Sh.Raj Kumar R/o Hans Raj R/o 1135, Gali Hansri Kucha Madho Mall Bhatia, Tehsil & District Amritsar.

..........Complainant

Versus

The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Chairman.

.........Opposite party

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.RK Tandon Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Brijesh Bakshi Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant was allotted LIG flat No.10-A, 2nd Floor, Vikas Scheme 51.5 acre( Bibi Bhani Complex) Guru Amardass Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.8.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.8.2009 at red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar and the information was given by JIT, Jalandhar vide its letter No.JIT/7865 dated 28.1.2010. The complainant has deposited all the requisite paper and performa for registration application dated 23.7.2012, the necessary fees and other formality were completed within stipulated period, the only formality which was to be completed was to give the possession of the plot to the complainant. However complainant received letter No.JIT/6177 dated 18.9.2012 that the possession of the flat is not to be given to the complainant at this stage. However, no reason was assigned, although complainant has given an affidavit that he has applied for a housing loan from State Bank of India, Main Branch Town Hall, Amritsar and was ready to get sale deed executed in complainant's name and was ready to deposit it to the bank for creation of equitable mortgage deed. The complainant is waiting for favourable response from the opposite party till today but the opposite party is putting him off on one pretext or another without assigning any reason and last letter received by the complainant is nothing but glaring example of unfair trade practice and the letter is non speaking and is a delaying tactics on the part of opposite party. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to give him possession of the plot (actually flat). He has also claimed Rs.1 Lac as damages and further litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party. There has been no default or inefficiency on the part of opposite party rather the opposite party itself has suffered at the hands of the contractor. The fact of the matter is that the work of the construction of 276 flats of the Bibi Bhani Complex, Guru Amardass Nagar, Jalandhar under the Self Financing Scheme was allotted to M/s SKA Builders (non know as S.K.A. Infrastructures Pvt Ltd) vide letter No.JIT/4576 dated 17.11.2009 for a sum of Rs.9,86,57.005/- and as per the agreement entered into with the above contractors on 24.11.2009 the said work was to be completed by the contractor within 18 months. However the construction work was not completed upto 16.5.2011 despite notices issued to the agency to complete the work as per schedule. The agency sought extension of time to complete the work and as per their request the extension was granted vide order dated 19.8.2011 conveyed vide letter No.JIT/5512 dated 29.8.2011 by levying Rs.10,000/- per month default penalty and the completion date was extended to 31.12.2011, thereafter again the work was not completed as promised and the said agency had been seeking extension of time for the completion of the work which was granted to the agency as per terms and conditions of extension but ultimately as there was no substantial progress in work and extension in time was being sought again and again as such they were directed to furnish the PERT Chart (as PERT Chart is a project management tool used to schedule, organize, and coordinate tasks within a project), so that the work could be evaluated and completion date be determined because already the agency had been paid a sum of Rs.7,80,20,616/- and as per the payment ratio only 79% work was done at site. But the agency failed to present any concrete proposal or the PERT Chart and thus vide resolution No.124 dated 3.6.2014 it was resolved that the agency be Blacklisted and the security amounts deducted from the running bills as well as the bank guarantee are forfeited in favour of the Trust and after measurements at site of the work done by the above said agency, the remaining work be got completed from some other agency at the risk and cost of defaulter agency. At present the said resolution is pending for approval with the government after which work shall be resumed at site and as regards the other matter the case is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, wherein the forfeiture of the bank guarantee is under challenge alongwith other reliefs by the contractor agency. Thus it may be seen that the trust was well on schedule to deliver possession if the contractor had completed the construction in time but unfortunately the possession of the flat in question could not be delivered due to defaults of the contractor agency as it abandoned the works at site even after taking huge amount from Jalandhar Improvement Trust and now the work shall be resumed as already resolved vide resolution No.124 dated 3.6.2014. As such the trust has acted bonafide and in good faith and never defaulted in performing its part of the construction agreement for providing services and possession of flats to the allottees. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O20 and closed evidence.

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

6. Ex.C2 is allotment letter dated 28.1.2010 in respect of the flat allotted to the complainant. As per clause 7 of the allotment letter the construction of the flat was to be completed within 2-1/2 years i.e till July 2012. The complainant has already paid Rs.5,54,974/- towards the price of the allotted flat. Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 and Ex.C10 to Ex.C12 are payment receipts in respect of the amount given by the complainant to the opposite party trust. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party trust has failed to give the possession of the flat to him till date. From the contents of written reply filed by opposite party trust it is evident that opposite party trust is not in a position to deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainant at present. In preliminary objection No.2 of the written reply, the opposite party trust has pleaded that it has suffered at the hands of the contractor. According to the opposite party, the work of the construction was allotted to the contractor but construction work was not completed by him upto 16.5.2011 or till the extended time. It is in the written reply of opposite party that only 79% work was done at site by the contractor as per payment ratio. The opposite party has further pleaded that trust was well on schedule to deliver possession if the contractor had completed the construction in time but unfortunately the possession of the flat in question could not be delivered due to default of the contractor as it abandoned the works at site even after taking huge amount from Jalandhar Improvement Trust and now the work shall be resumed as already resolved vide resolution No.124 dated 3.6.2014. So from the contents of written reply filed by opposite party trust it is evident that the opposite party has failed to complete the construction of the flats may be due to fault of the contractor or for some other reason for which the complainant can not be blamed. It is also in the written reply of opposite party that at present the said resolution is pending for approval with the government after which work shall be resumed at site. So at present it can not be held with certainty as to when the opposite party would be in a position to deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainant. So in these circumstances, we feel that giving compensation to the complainant is appropriate remedy. The opposite party trust was to deliver the possession to the complainant till July 2012. The complainant has already paid rs.5,54,974/- to the opposite party trust towards the price of the flat.

7. So in above circumstances, the opposite party trust is directed to pay 9% interest per annum on the above said amount of Rs.5,54,974/- to the complainant as compensation from August 2012 till the date of delivery of possession of the flat to him. 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

03.03.2015 Member Member President