Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 launched a scheme named ‘Allotment of 601 Freehold residential plot PUDA Enclave (Sugar mill Site), Jagraon and invited the applications from the general public. Accordingly, the complainant moved an application bearing No. 4496 dated 29.12.2012 for allotment of plot of 200 square yards in general category and the said allotment was to be made through draw of lots and in this draw conducted on 1.01.2013 by he concerned authorities of Opposite Parties, the complainant succeeded in getting the plot and the successful complainant is required to pay 10% of the total sale price of the plot which was disclosed as Rs.17 lakhs and accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.1,70,000/- to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 vide cheque and as per the rules framed under the scheme, the complainant was required to deposit another amount of Rs.2,55,000/- which is equal to 15% of the total amount of Rs.17 lakhs within 30 days after the receipt of the letter of intent to be issued by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and said letter of intend was issued by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 on 21.03.2013 which was not received by the complainant vide which some documents were demanded from the complainant. However, the complainant kept on asking the concerned officials on issuance of the letter of intent, but every time, the concerned officials replied that it will be sent after demolishing the old sugar mill. Lateron, the complainant came to know that said letter was sent to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5, but the complainant did not take any loan from Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 and so thee was no necessity for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to send the LOI to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5, rather it requires to be sent to the complainant directly. The correct address was there with Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were well aware of this fact as they had already sent letter bearing No. 2022 dated 21.03.2013 directly to the complainant. However, Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 also told the complainant that they never received any such LOI from Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. The complainant thereafter made so many visits to the office of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 either to refund the deposited amount or to get the remaining amount and to allot the plot in question, but the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are lingering on the matter on one pretext to another. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to allow the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.2,55,000/-and further directions may also be given to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to complete the necessary formalities like the issuance of LOI and make the allotment of the plot and in case the Opposite Parties unable to allot the plot, then an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till its realization plus Rs.1,50,000/- due to mental agony and pain and litigation expenses be ordered to be refunded to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that as per the allotment of the plot in question, he complainant deposited Rs.1,70,000/- as earnest money alongwith the application form as 10% price of total plot and the draw of the plot was held on 10.01.2013. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued a letter of Indent No. 9667 dated 08.11.2013 and the same was sent by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to the concerned bank i.e. Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 as per the rules for further sending the same to the complainant after completing the formalities. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 sent the LOI to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 bank because on the application form, which was deposited by the complainant it was clearly written on its top that the same was financed by the Moga Central Cooperative Bank, but the complainant has failed to deposit he mandatory amount of Rs.2,55,000/- i.e. 15% of the total tentative price as per the terms and conditions No. 4 of LOI. Apart from it, the complainant also failed to deposit the requisite documents and for that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued letter to the complainant, but the complainant failed to provide the same. In this regard, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 also issued letter bearing No. 3195 dated 23.06.2016 to the Punjab State Cooperative Bank stating that the respondent had already sent the LOI to them for further action, but they have failed to send the same to the complainant and as such, the complainant failed to deposit the requisite amount of 15% due to the fault of the bank and there is no fault on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 while forfeiting the 10% of the amount received. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. As per clause 12 of letter of intent, the possession of the plot was to be handed over after completion of the development work at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever was earlier. The allotment letter was issued in the name of the complainant and as per allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered within 90 days of the issuance of allotment letter . Moreover, if the possession not taken by the allottee within stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of such period. Accordingly, the development work of the project was completed on 30.09.2015 as per report of Divisional Engineer (Civil), (Public Health Electrical), GLADA, the allottee was to complete the construction within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authority. However, the complainant failed to get the site plan sanctioned within the stipulated period and also did not raise any construction. The complainant did not even apply for getting electricity, water sewerage connections which amounts to non compliance of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The electricity work at the spot has already been completed and all the ground work such as installation of the transformer, G-switch energy meter, feeder penals with bus bar and MCB and iron glad switches have been installed by the GLADA. Further the electrical work for the issuance of electric connections to the allottees was handed over to the Electricity Department vide memo No. 445 dated 29.03.2016. The Civil and Public Health works at the spot were commenced on 04.03.2014 and completed on 30.09.2015. In this manner, all the civil, health and sanitation work has been completed at the spot. Since the complainant himself has failed to comply with the payment schedule and has not deposited the instalments in time, he is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
4. Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that there was no TPA agreement between Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 and Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 for any kind of fulfillment of any obligation towards each other of the complainant. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 as no direct or indirect relation or conversion remained between Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 with the complainant after getting the demand draft by the complainant from his own account for earnest money from Opposite Party No.5. Moreover, there is no term, condition or obligations mentioned in the application form as well as in LOI about any kind of duty of the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, prays for dismissal of the complainant.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.DA alongwith copies of documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 and similarly, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of RA/4 and closed their evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 never sent the LOI for the deposit of the remaining amount of Rs.2,55,000/- and now the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are denying to allot the plot in question or to refund the deposited amount which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that as per the allotment of the plot in question, he complainant deposited Rs.1,70,000/- as earnest money alongwith the application form as 10% price of total plot and the draw of the plot was held on 10.01.2013. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued a letter of Indent No. 9667 dated 08.11.2013 and the same was sent by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to the concerned bank i.e. Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 as per the rules for further sending the same to the complainant after completing the formalities. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 sent the LOI to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 bank because on the application form, which was deposited by the complainant it was clearly written on its top that the same was financed by the Moga Central Cooperative Bank, but the complainant has failed to deposit he mandatory amount of Rs.2,55,000/- i.e. 15% of the total tentative price as per the terms and conditions No. 4 of LOI. Apart from it, the complainant also failed to deposit the requisite documents and for that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued letter to the complainant, but the complainant failed to provide the same. In this regard, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 also issued letter bearing No. 3195 dated 23.06.2016 to the Punjab State Cooperative Bank stating that the respondent had already sent the LOI to them for further action, but they have failed to send the same to the complainant and as such, the complainant failed to deposit the requisite amount of 15% due to the fault of the bank and there is no fault on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 while forfeiting the 10% of the amount received. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 also contended that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 never sent any such LOI to them to its further delivery to the complainant, nor there was any such occasion to send the same to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5. We are of the view that there was no contract between Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 and Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to send the LOI for the deposit of the remaining amount by the complainant with Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
9. We have gone through the rival contentions of the parties. Actual facts are that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have failed to complete the construction work at the site to be allotted to its customer and now they are lingering on the matter on one pretext to another. The present case is covered under the judgements passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in the said same project namely at Sugar Mills, Jagraon, District Ludhiana. Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in CC No. 878 of 2017 decided on 13.02.2018 in case Rajwinder Kaur Vs. PUDA has held that:-
“The information under RTI was obtained from Divisional Engineer (C-II) GLADA Ludhiana to the effect that till 05.09.2017, the National Highway has not given any approval to OPs for 100'-00' wide approach road, to be constructed and connected to the National Highway. This document has shown that till 05.09.2017 the National Highway Authority has not accorded any approval to connect this project with the National Highway to OPs. One K.L Sachdeva also obtained information under RTI from Divisional Engineer GLADA Ludhiana, vide Ex.C-4 on 06.06.2017 to the effect that there was no proposal as yet till 17.05.2017 for raising any boundary wall nor OPs have issued any such instructions in this regard. Another information obtained by K.L.Sachdeva from OPs on 05.06.2017 is Ex.C-5 to the effect that no sewerage connection has been allotted by the authority to Sugar Mill site Jagroan in the project, to be developed. This document Ex.C-5 has established that till 05.06.2017, no sewerage connection was granted to OPs in SUGAR Mill site project. The approach road connected with the main road is essential for development of the project.
OPs have not done the sewerage work in the project nor any approval has been received by OPs from the National Highway Authority for constructing road connecting approach with the main National Highway. Even boundary wall has not been raised around the project, as proved on the record.”
Further, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 760 of 2017 decided on 22.09.2017 decided on 06.06.2018 in case PUDA Vs. Mrs.Anupama Saluja in the same project has held so. However, the grounds of completion of work as on 30.09.2015 as taken by the Opposite Parties in its reply under para No.4 of its preliminary objections was also considered by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in CC/811/2019 decided on 11.06.2020 in para No.8 of its order and held as under:-
Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh vide para No.13 & 14, 14, `6, 17, 18 in its order also held as under:-
Para No. 13: It also needs to be mentioned that Completion/Occupation Certificate is required to be obtained by every promoter, before delivery of possession of the plot/flat/unit etc.
Para No.14: Opposite parties-GMADA squarely fall within the definition of "Promoter", as defined in Section 2 (y) of PAPRA and discussed above. It was also held in that case that the opposite parties, being promoter, were duty bound to obtain Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authority before delivering possession of the particular property to the allottee. Similar proposition of law was laid down by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.420 of 2018 (Usha Rani v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Anr.) decided, vide order dated 11.09.2018.
10. In this complaint, still said evidence as per the spirit of order of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh is not placed on record which means that the Opposite Parties have not obtained the completion certificate for the said plot of the complainant in the project in question. Moreover, it is the case of the Opposite Parties that due to some technical hitch, they could not develop the area and hence, the possession could not be given to the allottees. Moreover, Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1231 of 2016 has held in para No. 13 that after the sufficient gap after the due date of possession, the complainant can not be compelled to take possession as per the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3-PUDA have failed to comply with the directions, as mentioned above, they are directed to refund the entire amount deposited against the plot in question i.e. Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy thousands only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 31.08.2017 till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3-PUDA within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
12. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
