1.      The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (the Act”), against the Order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab. (“State Commission”) in CC No. 883/2017, wherein the State Commission allowed the Complaint.

2.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

3.      The brief facts, as per the complainant, are that in 2012, the OPs advertised a Scheme for 601 Residential Plots at Sugar Mill Site, Jagraon. Mrs Kanta, the wife of Shri Gulshan Kumar, applied for a 500 Sq Yd plot priced at ₹42,50,000. She was successful in the draw held on 10.01.2013 and the OPs issued a letter of intent on 28.02.2013 for Plot No. 3, after receiving 25% of the total tentative price, i.e. ₹10,62,500. An allotment letter was issued on 29.08.2015. The complainant purchased the plot from Kanta, with OP’s permission and a re-allotment letter dated 21.12.2015 was issued in his name, subject to the conditions of original allotment and relevant laws. The complainant then paid ₹9,13,750 to OPs by cheque dated 01.09.2016 and made another payment of ₹10,00,000 on 22.12.2016. He continued paying instalments thereafter, amounting to a total of ₹29,76,250 towards the price of the plot. Under Clause 4 of the allotment letter, possession was to be delivered within 90 days of date of allotment i.e. 29.08.2015. But, despite repeated approaches, possession was delayed. Information obtained under the RTI Act revealed that the OPs had only applied for approval for the 100'-00" wide approach road on 06.07.2016, over a year after the allotment, and no permission was sought from the Department of Forest, further delaying road construction. Furthermore, the development work at the site was incomplete, with no sewerage connection or boundary wall in place. As on the date of filing the complaint, there was no road connectivity, including 100'-00" wide approach road, and the development works remained unfinished. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by OPs and filed the present complaint.

4.      In their joint reply, OPs raised preliminary objections and contended that the complainant was not a 'consumer' of the OPs, as the plot was purchased for speculative purposes, not for genuine residential use. The complainant had no cause of action, and the complaint was not maintainable. The Commission lacked jurisdiction under Section 174 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. The OPs also accused the complainant of concealing material facts. They acknowledged that the original allottee, Smt. Kanta, had applied for the plot under the OUVGL Scheme, paid the earnest money, and was successfully allotted Plot No. 3 in the draw held on 10.01.2013. The OPs admitted payments by the complainant but emphasized that neither the original allottee nor the complainant took possession within the required 90 days of the allotment letter, making the plot deemed handed over by 29.11.2015. All development work, including water, sewerage, and internal roads, had been completed by 30.09.2015, and there was sufficient road access for construction purposes. The NOC for highway access was applied for by PWD, not GLADA, and there was no provision for constructing a boundary wall or gate for the scheme. The sewerage connections would only be provided after construction was completed. They denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices and sought dismissal of the complaint.

5.    The learned State Commission vide order dated 01.06.2018 allowed the complaint with the following directions:

“18. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

(i)  to refund the amount of ₹29,76,250/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates of different deposits till the date off actual payment;

(ii) to refund the amount of ₹1,08,750/- to the complainant deposited by him as transfer fee along with interest @ 12% per annum; and

(iii)  to pay ₹1,00,000/-, as compensation, for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss suffered by him, including litigation expenses.

19. The opposite parties shall comply with these directions within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of ₹1,00,000/- from the date of order till the date of compliance.”

6.    Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the Ld. State Commission, OP Nos. 1-3 (Appellants herein) filed this present Appeal no. 2171 of 2018 seeking to:

“i.   Allow the present appeal and set aside the order and judgment dated 01.06.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Complaint No. 883 of 2017 and or /

(ii)   Pass any such and further order (s) which this Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

7.    In the grounds of the instant appeal, the Appellants have mainly contended the following:

A. The complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service under the allotment letter. Despite this, the State Commission wrongly awarded undue benefit to him, relying on assumptions and irrelevant statutes without evidence. The site had adequate access for construction his claim regarding lack of connectivity to NH-05 was baseless as it was not under the allotment terms.

B. The NOC for highway access was applied for by PWD and not GLADA as claimed. The complainant delayed taking possession, failed to apply for building plan approval, and did not begin construction. The State Commission also ignored that no boundary wall or gate was proposed. Water and sewerage infrastructure was completed by 30.09.2015 and sewer connections to be provided after construction completion. Water connections were restricted by Supreme Court orders limiting groundwater use for construction.

C. The State Commission erred in holding that the complainant had been a consumer under the Act.

D. The State Commission failed to indicate the basis upon which the amount was awarded, without any statement in the order under challenge and unjustifiable delay and harassment.

E. The impugned order deserved to be set aside for being erroneous and issued in ignorance of the settled position of law, the facts and circumstances of the case, and the express terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties under the Allotment letter, which had been placed on record by the respondent/complainant himself.

8.    In their arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs reiterated the grounds of appeal. He relied on Bareilly Development Authority Vs. Ajay Pal Singh, (1989)2 SCC 116 and argued that as per the LOA, the possession was ‘Deemed to Have Been Handed Over’ on expiry of 90 days after the issue of the LOA. Within 90 days of the issuance of the LOA, and the complainant never approached the OP for possession of the plot in spite of the LOA being issued to him. He referred to report by the Construction Wing of GLADA/PUDA i.e.
Divisional Engineer (Civil-Public Health) and (Electricity) that by 30.09.2015 the development work regarding civil, public health and electrical services were complete. He argued that there is a 47' wide road connecting the National Highway to 60' wide Urban Estate Road and number of other allottees constructed on their allotted plots using these roads. There was no hindrance to carry out construction work and it is only his ignorance due to which he has been unable to take possession/ put his plot to use. He relied on Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM 
Royal Dutch Airline and another, (2000(1) SCC66) and argued that he sought to evade his obligations without justification even after possession. He also relied on Kolkata West International City Vs. Devasis Rudra (2020) 18 SCC 6/3, Chief Administrator Punjab Urban Developers Authority & Another Vs. Manju Chauhan, 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 555, and averred that the State Commission granted 12% interest which is not in line with the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of refund. The State Commission failed to consider OPs records, evidence and did not pass a reasoned order.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts and argued that, as per Clause 4 of the Letter of Allotment, possession was to be handed over within 90 days provided, 25% of the tentative price was paid. The total plot value was ₹42,50,000. Of which 25% (₹10,62,500) was initially paid, and allotment letter was issued on 29.08.2015. Thus, GLADA/Appellants were required to hand over possession by 29.11.2015. But, they failed to do so, and despite several years, possession had still not been delivered. The OP’s defence was misconceived and misleading. The complainant could only take possession if it was offered by OPs. In the absence of an offer, the OPs were at fault. Since the possession was never offered or delivered, the OPs were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and liable to refund entire amount. He relied on Anil Nayyar v. Unitech Acacia Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (2) CPR 530, and Sipra Thomes Through Ms. Sriya Coomer v. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2016(3) CLT 36 it lacked merit.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties.

11.  It is undisputed that the original allottee, Smt. Kanta, applied for a residential plot and was allotted Plot No. 3 measuring 500 Sq Yds in the draw held on 10.01.2013. She deposited the requisite earnest money of ₹4,25,000, being 10% of the plot price, and further paid ₹6,37,500, constituting 15% of the plot value, as required by the allotment terms. The total tentative consideration was ₹42,50,000. The OPs issued the letter of intent on 28.02.2013, and the Allotment Letter was issued on 29.08.2015, which confirmed the plot allocation to Smt. Kanta. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the said plot from said Kanta, after taking prior permission of the OPs and got the same transferred in his name, vide permission transfer dated 21.12.2015. It is also undisputed that OPs issued re-allotment letter to the complainant in respect of the said plot on the same day. Admittedly, complainant paid ₹29,76,250 towards the plot to OPs.

12.  As regards the objection of OPs that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint as he has purchased the plot in question from one Ms Kanta who was the original allottee and not from the OPs, it is a well settled principle of law that on the transfer of the plot in question to complainant, with due concurrence of OPs and OPs issuing re-allotment letter to the complainant vide letter dated 21.12.2015, clearly he stepped into the shoes of the original allottee for all purposes as if it was originally allotted and he is a 'consumer' under the Act with respect to OPs. Further, as regards objection of OPs with respect to jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint under the Act, as the same is barred by Section 174 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, it is clear that Section 3 of the Act that the provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, consumer fora has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Furthermore, the OP raised objection that the plot was purchased for speculative purpose. However, while the onus of establishing such assertion is on OPs, there is nothing on record to substantiate that he purchased the same for speculative purpose and the objection of OPs is untenable.

13.  Now, coming to the merits of the case, admittedly Ms Kanta had applied for allotment of the plot in question in general category with the OPs and deposited ₹4,25,000 as earnest money. She was successful in the draw held on 10.01.2013 and was issued Letter of Intent dated 28.02.2013 for the plot in question and Allotment Letter dated 29.08.2015. She also deposited ₹6,37,500 as required. The tentative price of the plot in question is ₹42,50,000/- @ ₹8,500/- per square yard. It is also admitted position the complainant purchased the plot in question from said Kanta after taking prior permission of the OPs and got the same transferred in his name, vide permission for transfer dated 21.12.2015 and re-allotment letter was also issued on the same day. Admittedly the complainant paid two instalments of ₹9,13,750/- and ₹10,00,000/-. Thus he paid ₹29,76,250/- to OPs.

14.  As per Clause 4 of the Allotment Letter, the possession of plot was to be delivered within 90 days from the date of Allotment Letter. If possession is not taken by the allottee within stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on expiry of said period. Clause 5 of Allotment Letter further provides that he needs to complete the construction within 3 years from the date of allotment. His main claim is that he paid substantial amount as consideration for the plot, but OPs failed to deliver possession. The information obtained under RTI Act, 2005 from Divisional Engineer, GLADA Ludhiana revealed that till 05.09.2017, the National Highway Authority had not given any approval to OPs to construct the essential  l00'-00" wide approach road and connect to the National Highway. Also, no sewerage connection was allotted till 05.06.2017.

15.  While the OPs claimed deemed possession, there is nothing on the record to substantiate the same and, having paid substantial amount as consideration, the OPs were bound to deliver possession within 90 days from the date of issue of allotment. Therefore, non-delivery of possession constitutes deficiency in service. He cannot be made to wait indefinitely. It is now well settled that a consumer cannot be compelled to take delivery of possession of the unit after the expiry of the stipulated date of delivery as agreed by the parties.

16.    In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that the State Commission order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, except for quantum of compensation awarded.

17.    As regards compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 dated 07.04.2022 held:-

“We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts.  The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit.  We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.

At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just.”

18.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable. Therefore, award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss suffered by him by the learned State Commission is untenable.

19.    In view of the foregoing, the Order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. C.C. No.883 of 2017 is modified as under:

ORDER

1. The Appellant/Opposite party shall refund Rs.29,76,250/- and Rs.1,08,750/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till its realization. In case of default, the interest shall carry @ 12% per annum for such extended period.

2. The Appellant/opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs.

3. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss is set aside.

20.    The First Appeal No.2171 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly.

21.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

22.    The Registry is directed to release the Statutory Deposit amount, if any due, in favour of the Appellant, after due compliance of the order of the learned State Commission.