Punjab

Patiala

CC/18/483

Guneet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H.P.S Sidhu

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 483 of 21.12.2018

                                      Decided on:         15.2.2023

 

 

1. Guneet Singh aged about 40 years son of Late Dr.Mohinder Singh, resident of H.No.3-B, Khalsa College Colony, Badungar, District Patiala.

 

2. Ravneet Mahajan aged about 38 years, daughter of Late Dr.Mohinder Singh, wife of Atin Mahaja resident of # 33, Ward No.10, Shri Ram Market, Dalhousie Road, Tehsil and District Pathankot, Gurdaspur.

 

 

                                                                   …………...Complainants.

                                      Versus

 

Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Chairman.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

QUORUM

 

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.A.S.Dhillon, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Arvind Gjpta, counsel for OP.             

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Guneet Singh and Ravneet Mahajan  (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against Improvement Trust, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainants are as under:

That a new scheme was launched by the OP in the name of Sardar Patel Enclave Vikas Scheme (Near Khalsa College), Patiala for providing built up flats, after developing the area alongwith basic amenities and other facilities as per the brochure issued. Under the said scheme MIG and HIG flats were to be allotted on the basis of lucky draw in October, 2012. The complainants being real brother and sister purchased/allotted one Flat No.HIG 18, Second Floor, 6Athrough allotment letter No.PIT/12/1778 dated 18.6.2012 in the said scheme. The consideration money was to be paid to the OP in installments. Possession of the flat was required to be given after 30 months (i.e. 2.5 years) from the date of issuance of allotment letter i.e. by October/2014. Complainant No.1 deposited 25% of the total value of the flat at the time of agreement and thereafter also deposited the balance consideration on respective dates, as per the schedule payment given by OP.

As per the terms and conditions of OPpayment was to be paid in 10 equal installments, which were to be deposited bi-annually with no interest on first fiveinstallments and the remaining 5 installments were to be paid with interest,

provided if, the possession of the flat was handed over to the allottee. The flats were neither completed nor handed over upto December,2014 rather the same were completed in October,2016. Furthermore, when possession of flats was handed over, same were not in accordance with the specifications mentioned in the brochure.

Complainant No.1 transferred the said flat in favor of complainant No.2 vide registered Transfer Deed bearing Vasika No.1364 dated 5.5.2017.The transfer in favour of complainant No.2 was allowed by the OP vide its order dated 14.8.2017 by issuing allotment letter No.PTI/17/1980 dated 14.8.2017 on after receipt of amount of Rs.3,15,000 from the complainants.

Some of the works in the said scheme were also kept pending Complainant alongwith other residents of the area requested OP many a times for completion of work. Several letters in this regard were also written to OP but no action was taken. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony, physical harassment and also financial loss to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3.  Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement having taken various preliminary objections.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the flat was allotted to complainant No.1 under the self financing scheme as per brochure issued by the Trust. Complainant No.1 had already sold the said flat and transferred the possession of the same to complainant No.2 vide Vasika No.1364 dated 5.5.2017.After sale of this flat, complainant no.1 was left with no concern with the said flat.
5.           It is submitted that allotment letter was issued and agreement between complainants No.1&2 & the OP was signed. Due to transfer of this flat in the name of complainant No.2, all dues were cleared on 17.9.2015.Fresh agreement and affidavit was written by the complainant at the time of sale. As per said agreement and affidavit, purchaser received the possession of the flat complete in all respect and complainant No.2 has no right to file any such complaint because the original agreement was not with complainant No.2. It is also submitted that possession of the flat was to be given in December,2014 but in the present case, complainant No.2 had received the possession complete in respect at the time of transfer of the flat on 6 October,2016. But she was already in possession of the flat as per agreement and affidavit executed by her at the time of transfer of this flat and he she has no right to claim or say about any kind of unfair trade practice. Complainant No.2 cannot derive any benefit of agreement dated 18.6.2012 executed between complainant and the Trust. The complainants have no concern with the earlier orders passed by this Commission. No amount was illegally recovered by the Trust. Thus, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.     
6. In support of the averments, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Ravneet Mahajan, complainant, alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of brochure, Ex.C2 allotment letter, Ex.C3 copy of schedule of payment,Ex.C4 copy of allotment letter to Ravneet Mahajan,Exs.C5 to C13  copies of payment receipts, Ex.C14 copy of transfer deed, Ex.C15 copy of order of Hon’ble National Commission,Exs.C16 to C18 copies of letters of Improvement Trust and closed evidence.
7. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Gora Lal, Executive officer alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of  sale deed dated 5.5.2017,Ex.OP2 copy of agreement, Ex.OP3 copy of affidavit of Ravneet Mahajan and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully. 
9. Admittedly vide allotment letter bearing memo No. PIT/12/1778 dated 18.6.2012, Ex.C2, flat No.HIG 18 second Floor 6-A, area 1876.53 sq. yds in Sardar Patel Enclave was allotted to the complainant No.1 Guneet Singh S/o Dr.Mohinder Singh. Ex.C1 is the brochure whereby OP made advertisement with regard to the aforesaid scheme. As per clause 11 of this brochure the OP was to handover the possession of the flat in question within 2 ½ years from the date of allotment i.e upto December/2014. But the possession was not handed over within the said prescribed period. From this it is established that in the first instance the cause of action had arisen to the complainant in the year 2014 when the possession was to be delivered by the OP. But complainant No.1 kept mum  and did not challenge the same before this Commission within the  limitation period of  two years  i.e. upto December,2016.
10. Ld. counsel for the OP argued that complainant No.1 had sold the flat in question and transferred the possession of the same to complainant No.2 (Ex.C4/Ex.OP1). Hence complainant No.1 has no concern with the said flat. Ld. counsel for the OP has also argued that complainant No.2 was already in possession of the flat when the same was handed over in 6 October,2016.The OP corroborated this fact by adducing affidavit, Ex.OPA. Further it is also evident that vide registered sale deed dated 10.5.2017,Ex.C14/Ex.OP1 whereby complainant No.1 transferred the flat in question in the name of his real sister Ravneet Mahajan, complainant No.2 for which permission was granted by the OP on 14.8.2017 vide letter, Ex.C4.
11. As per letter No.PIT/16/2661 dated 3.10.2016, possession of flat was given by OP to complainant No.1 on 6.10.2016 which has been duly signed by complainants No.1&2.
12. In view of this fact 2^nd cause of action had arisen to the complainants in October/2016, when possession was delivered. Both the complainants failed to knock the door of this Commission  within two years of limitation from 2014 upto 2016 or from October/2016 to October/2018 and have knocked the door of this Commission only on  21.12.2018 after the period of limitation. Moreover, when  complainant No.1 had sold the flat and transferred the property in the name of complainant No.2, therefore, he is no more the consumer of the OP.
13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the instant complaint is filed after the period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. We order accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.

85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President