LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
PUDA-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority 
Submit Complaint..Manohar Singh s/o Sh. Rakha Singh , r/o Village Urapar Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahr.
Complainant.
Versus
1PUDA-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Estate Office, Jalandhar through its Estate Officer, Jalandhar.
2Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Pb (Urban Estate Mohali through its Chief Administrator , SAS Nagar (Mohali) Respondents
Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
BEFORE: SHRI S.M.S.MAHAL, PRESIDENT
SH. SUKHDEV SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Miss Sandeep Khabra, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the Ops.
S.M.S.MAHAL, PRESIDENT
Manohar Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against the PUDA-(Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority), Estate Office, Jalandhar and Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Pb (Urban Estate) through its Chief Administrator, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1, and 2, respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to pay interest @ 18 P.A. on the amount of Rs 3500/- since 2002 along with Rs 3, 00,000/- as damages and Rs 25,000/- as compensation for harassment and future interest @ 12 % till the realization of the above amount.
2 Brief allegations of the complainant are that Op No. 1 in the year 2002 had invited application for allotment of residential plot in Nawanshahr (SBS Nagar) and demanded Rs 3500/- as earnest money. The complainant had applied for the allotment of a plot of 400 square feet and deposited Rs 3500/- as earnest money with the Ops in the year 2002 through bank draft. The Ops had assured that the plot will be allotted within a short span of time but the ops did not make any effort to acquire the property in the area of Nawanshahr. The prices of the property were stated to have shot up from Rs 35,000/- per marla to Rs 1,50,000/- per marla. It is alleged that the complainant was under the impression that the plot will be allotted to him and he will construct his residence over it. But surprisingly the Ops sent demand draft dated 30-05-2008 for Rs 3500/- to the complainant. It is further stated that the ops were bound to allot the plot as per its scheme but it failed to do so and after using the amount of Rs 3500/- since the year 2002-03 it has returned the principal amount only. Since the prices of the land are alleged to have gone up 10 time, the complainant claims to have suffered damages. Hence this complaint.
4 In the written version filed by the Ops, maintainability of the complaint has been challenged on the ground that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint and that the applications were invited only for survey to be conducted about the feasibility of the scheme and there was no assurance about the allotment of the plot which fact was duly mentioned in the advertisement. On merits also, it was denied that the applications were invited for allotment of the plots or the amount got deposited was an earnest money. It was contended that the ops had invited the applications under PUDA demand survey scheme ( Nawanshahr Chandigarh Road), to access the demand of plots by the Public at large at Nawanshahr and the complainant had submitted the application of his own will after going through the terms and conditions given in the advertisement. It was also denied that there was any assurance by the Ops for allotment the plot to the complainant, as alleged. Further, that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the ops for establishment of Urban Estate at Nawanshahr which were rescinded by the Government vide its notification 02/06/07/2007. The amount of Rs 3500/- was also stated to have been rightly returned to the complainant without interest as the complainant was not entitled to the same as specified in the advertisement. It was also denied that there was any deficiency by the ops towards the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.
5 Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents.
6 We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.
7 So for as the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and try this complaint is concerned, no doubt the ops are situated at Jalandhar and Mohali, yet it is clear that the Urban Estate in which the plots were to be allotted, was to be established at Nawanshahr with in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum . It also can not be disputed that the development of such scheme by the Ops is profit oriented. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the ops were to work for gain at Nawanshahr and a part of cause of action had arisen in the favour of the complainant to file this complaint before this Forum. The objection of the ops in this regard not tenable.
8 So for as the allegations of the complainant that the applications were invited by the ops for allotment of plots at Nawanshahr and the amount of Rs 3500/- was got deposited as earnest money is concerned, the same is not factually correct. The perusal of Ex C-3 photo stat copy of the application dated 24/01/2003 relied upon by the complainant clearly indicates that the application was for demand survey of 2002-03 and column no. 10 of this application was about category of plot size preferred . The copy of the acknowledgement Ex C-4 which is part of the application also clearly indicates that the application received were for demand survey. The mere fact that column no. 14 of the application referred to earnest money details, does not lead to the conclusion that the amount deposited by the complainant or other applicants was towards earnest money. Since there was no mention about the actual price of the plot or specific offer by the ops about allotment of the plot, it could not be held that the application received by the ops was about offer of a plot and the amount received was earnest money. The complainant has not produced the copy of the advertisement vide which the application were invited. On the contrary the ops have tendered Ex R-3 copy of the said advertisement in Hindi script which clearly indicated that applications were invited for residential plots/ houses/ flats at Nawanshahr under PUDA demand survey scheme (Nawanshahr Chandigarh road) .The terms and conditions printed over this advertisement clearly mentioned that this advertisement was issued for the limited purpose i.e. for the demand survey and dos not confer right to the applicant for allotment.
9 From the aforesaid facts, there remains hardly any scope of doubt that there was no offer of plot by the ops to the complainant through the advertisement and the amount of Rs 3500/- got deposited from the complainant was not towards earnest money and infact it was application money only. The complainant therefore can not be held to be the consumer of the ops as defined U/s 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as he had neither bought any goods from the ops, nor hired any services of the ops . The complaint therefore is not legally maintainable.
10 Otherwise also, term and condition no. 5 of the advertisement made it clear that having sufficient demand warranting setting up of the Urban Estate at Nawanshahr, applications shall be retained for a maximum period of 2 years during which PUDA will take steps to develop or float the scheme as the case may be. The applicants were given the option to withdraw the application at any time and the amount was to be refunded without interest. Condition no. 6 was applicable where the demand was insufficient and setting up of a Urban Estate was not warranted. In this case, the amount was to be refunded without interest within 6 month from the closing date of demand survey which in this case 05-12-2003. Both these conditions are not applicable in this case. Condition 7 provides that in the case the scheme is withdrawn or allotments are not made within 2 years from the date of closing of the demand survey, for any reasons what so ever, PUDA will refund the application money to the applicants within a maximum period of 3 months of the expiry of the 2 years without interest. In this case, the acquisition proceedings had been rescinded by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 06-07-2007. Thus it is clear that the scheme for allotment of the plots was initiated but the same did not mature as the acquisition proceedings had been rescinded by the Government. Therefore, there is no intentional default on the part of the ops in the allotment of the plots as offered in the demand survey scheme. The scheme had come to an end on 06-07-2007 on the issuance of the notification by the Government and as per conditions 7 the ops were supposed to refund the application money to the applicants within a maximum period of 3 months of the expiry of 2 years of the withdrawal of the scheme, without interest. The right of the complainant to claim interest was frustrated under this condition also.
11 So for as the assertion of the complainant about mis-use of the application money is concerned, this Forum is not supposed to enter into this controversy, as only deficiency in service is to be considered which has not been established in this case.
12 As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to dismiss this complaint. The complainant is however at liberty to seek the remedy through Civil Court, if he so desires.
13 Parties shall bear their own costs..
Bookmarks