The complainant Seema Rani (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Housefed, Punjab and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she purchased a residential plot No. 96 measuring 500 sq yards at Co-operative Housing Complex , Dabwali Road, Bathinda from it's owner Dr Sham Lal Thukral s/o Sh Topan Dass R/o H.No A-5/11, Civil Lines, Bathinda on 31-12-2008. After purchasing the said plot, complainant submitted the documents including affidavit dated 2-8-2010 for transfer of ownership in her name. Thereafter on the directions of opposite parties complainant paid Rs 100/- vide receipt No. 2717 of 29-10-2010 and Rs 20,000/- as transfer fees through receipt No. 2718 dated 29-10-2010 and Rs 500/- as service charges vide receipt No. 2719 dated 29-10-2010.
It has been pleaded that complainant got the transfer letter No. Hfed-TW5121 dated 13-5-2011 from S.E. Housefed Punjab chandigarh. Thereafter complainant received a undated letter vide which complainant was directed to deposit Rs 10,000/- and Rs 5994/- upto 30-6-2012, without giving any breakup. Even no address of complainant was given on the above said letter. The complainant thereafter received a letter No. 299 dated 26-7-2011 vide which Rs. 20/- per sq yard were demanded from her as maintainance charges if the construction is not started upto 30-9-2011. The complainant pleaded that the authorities didn't hand over the sanctioned map to complainant till date and under forced circumstances, complainant deposited Rs 10,000/- as maintenance charges vide receipt No. 3188 dated 21-8-2012 though she was not liable to make any payment as the fault is on the part of Housefed. Complainant reserves her right to get the amount back with 18% interest from date of deposit till payment. Likewise another amount of Rs 6000/- was also deposited through receipt No. 17307 dated 21-8-2012. Complainant is entitled to refund of this amount also. Thereafter opposite party No. 5 again directed the complainant vide letter No. 142 of dated 14-4-2014 to deposit Rs 8130/- being sewerage bill and Rs 30,000/- maintainance charges upto 31-10-2014 which was totally illegal and against law. The opposite parties are not entitled to get anything from complainant without sanctioning the map.
The complainant has pleaded that she had lost transfer letter and thereafter on the direction of the opposite party No. 2 the complainant submitted DDR and affidavit with the opposite parties on 5-1-2016 to get duplicate transfer allotment letter but the opposite parties are bent upon to create the harassment to the complainant by not issuing the duplicate allotment letter as well as sanctioned map even after getting the required fees in that regard. The oppsite party No. 5 raised demand of Rs 14,408/- as water sewerage charges and Rs 45,000/- as maintenance through letter No. 19 dated 16-5-2016 payable upto 30-4-2016. The complainant again wrote a letter to the opposite party No. 2 for issuing the duplicate allotment letter and sent DD of Rs 1000/- and original affidavit on 15-11-2016 but no action was taken on the application of the complainant rather the opposite party No. 5 got another amount of Rs 16382/- from the complainant on 14-9-2016 through receipt No. 3052 on account of water sewerage charges and Rs 45,000/- on account of maintenance charges through receipt No.4025 dated 15-9-2016 though the complainant was not liable to make any payment as the complainant was not using water/sewerage. The complainant was also not liable to make any charges for maintenance as the opposite parties failed to sanction the map and till date there was no construction due to negligent act of opposite parties.
The complainant alleged that she is still suffering and is not able to construct the house on the plot which was purchased by her with the hope to have a good house. The complainant again received letter dated 24-10-2017 from opposite party No. 2 wherein it was mentioned that some amount is due against the complainant but no amount was disclosed. It is alleged that if the map was sanctioned in time, then complainant would have to pay very meager price for construction charges but now due to non sanction of map, complainant will have to pay hefty amount as construction charges. The complainant is still suffering loss due to non-issuance of duplicate allotment letter as well sanctioned map for construction of house, for which she claims compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The complainant alleged that repeated requests were made to deliver the physical possession of plot and to pay the interest as the opposite parties were using the money without giving anything to the complainant but the opposite parties didn't listen.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund (i) Rs 15,994/- paid vide undated receipt (ii) Rs. 10,000/- paid on 21-8-2012 (iii) Rs. 6,000/- paid on 21-8-2012 (iv) Rs. 16,382/- paid on 14-9-2016 (v) Rs. 45,000/- paid on 15-9-2016 + with interest @18% from the date of deposit till payment. The opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as difference of cost of construction; Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation in addition to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.
On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, names of opposite parties No. 1,3 & 4 were deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 20-2-2018.
Upon notice, opposite parties No. 2 & 5 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
The opposite party No. 2 in its written reply raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable as per provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. That the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint due to her own act and conduct. That the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. That this Commission has got no juridiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous.
It has been pleaded that complainant made a request on 4.7.2016 alongwith documents to the Managing Director of the Housefed. Again the complainant sent a letter dated 15.11.2016 to the Managing Director which was received on 18.11.2016 alongwith documents. The letter dated 28.11.2016 was written by the opposite party No.5 to the complainant. Another letter dated 11.9.2017 was sent by Distt. Manager Housefed Bathinda. The reply was sent vide letter dated 20.9.2017. The letter No.4337 dated 19.9.2017 was also sent. The complainant again sent a request to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab alongwith documents. Another letter dated 11.12.2017 was sent to the complainant. The letter dated 24.1.2018 was written by the Chairman of opposite party No. 5. Again a letter dated 5.1.2018 was sent by complainant. The opposite party No.5 wrote a letter dated 25.1.2018.
The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that the first allotment was given to Mr. Gursewak Singh S/o Ajmer Singh and same was transferred to Ramandeep Singh S/o Randeep Singh, Balwant Kaur W/o Bikram Singh and was transferred on the request to Saroj Bansal wife of Surinder Singh. Again on the request, said plot was transferred to Dr.Sham Lal Thukral after clearing all dues till date. Thereafter the request was made to transfer the ownership in the name of complainant i.e. Seema Rani and same was transferred by completing all the formalities and dues etc., till date by the complainant. The ownership of plot is only changed by the opposite party No.2 after clearance of all the formalities and dues and when the consent is given by the concerned i.e. opposite party No 5. The opposite party No.2 has no direct interference and all the dues are to be collected from the allottee by opposite party No. 5 as per their record. The opposite party No.2 has changed the ownership from time to time after the clearance.
It has been further pleaded by opposite party No. 2 that after receiving the request of the complainant, a letter was written by the S.E. to Distt. Manager Housefed and reply dated 5.9.2017 was received. The letter dated 25.10.2013 was sent to the complainant. Thereafter the official proceedings dated 13.11.2017, 15.11.2017 and 27.11.2017 were made in this regard. The S.E. wrote a letter dated 19.9.2017 to the opposite party No.5 and the reply of the same was sent vide letter dated 27.10.2017. Again letter dated 4.12.2017 was sent by S.E.to the complainant. The letter dated 25.1.2018 was sent by the S.E. to Distt. Manager Housefed and in this regard, reply was sent vide letter dated 30.1.2018. The official proceedings were made on 24.1.2018. Thereafter a letter dated 8.3.2018 was sent by S.E.to the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the dues payable by her as per rules.
It has also been pleaded that the amount payable by the complainant for sanctioning the map, required to be recovered as per rules. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
The opposite party No. 5 in its separate written reply raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable as per provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. That the the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint due to her own act. That the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts. That this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous.
On merits, it has been admitted that the plot was transferred vide letter dated 13.5.2011 and the complainant was issued a letter for depositing the balance amount alongwith interest. The complainant never submitted the site plan before the opposite party, as such no question of sanctioning. the map arises. The opposite party No. 5 has every right to recover the maintenance charges.
It has been pleaded that the first allottee/owner Gursewak Singh S/o Ajmer Singh had applied for water and sewer connection and deposited the requisite fee for both. From that date, the plot has been transferred to many persons on sale purchase and all have been deposited the same amount of water and sewer etc., from time to time as well as the complainant has deposited the same amount which was to be paid by her. Till date no appliction by the complainant and other owner from time to time, was received to disconnect the said connections. As such, the amounts are/were recoverable from the complainant.
The opposite party No. 5 has further pleaded that till date none has applied for sanctioning of map, as such, no question arises for sanctioning. The complainant has made a vague request for refund of amount and interest. The amount payable by complainant for sanctioning the map is required to be recovered as per rules. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 5 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-13) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-12 and Ex. C-14 to Ex. C-38).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Major Singh (Ex. OP-2/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-2/2 to Ex. OP-2/22).
The opposite party No. 5 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurjit Singh (Ex. OP-5/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-5/2 to Ex. OP-5/11). The opposite party No. 5 has also tendered documents (Ex. OP-5/12 to Ex. OP-5/16) in additional evidence.
The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that ownership of plot in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 13-5-2011 vide letter dated (Ex. OP-2/7). The original transfer letter was lost and complainant furnished copy of DDR to the opposite parties in this regard. Despite submission of all due charges and DDR, complainant has not been issued duplicate transfer letter and approved map to enable the complainant to construct house/building whereas the opposite parties raising uncessary demand of water and sewerage charges, maintenance charges which the complainant is not liable to pay as she is not residing in the society and has not availed the services.
On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is that the opposite party No.2 has no direct interference and all the dues are to be collected from the allottee by opposite party No. 5 as per their record. The opposite party No.2 has changed the ownership from time to time after the clearance.
The learned counsel for opposite party No. 5 submitted that water and sewerage connections were released to first allottee Gursewak Singh on his request and thereafter none applied for disconnection of these connections. Neither complainant nor anyone else/other allottee applied for issuance of approved map. Hence, complainant is liable to pay charges which have been charged from her as per rules.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
A perusal of prayer clause of complaint reveals that complainant has claimed following reliefs :
(i) Issue duplicate allotment letter and sanctioned plan for construction of plot No. 96. (ii) Refund of Rs. 15,995/- undated receipt; Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 6,000/- paid on 21-8-12; Rs. 16382/- paid on 14-9-2016; Rs. 45,000/- paid on 15-9-2016 and compensation and cost etc.
The ownership of plot in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 13-5-2011 vide Ex. OP-2/7 after clearance of all dues. The complainant lost transfer letter and on the direction of opposite party No. 2, the complainant submitted DDR, affidavit and demand draft of Rs. 1,000/- with the opposite parties to get duplicate transfer allotment letter, vide Ex. C-8. A perusal of Ex. C-8 reveals that this document is undated but a note at the bottom of this letter is given whereby it is mentioned that affidavit dated 15-11-2016 and demand draft for Rs. 1,000/- dated 15-11-2016 are enclosed. Hence, it is proved on file that complainant completed the formalities to get duplicate transfer letter after 15-11-2016. Thereafter complainant kept on requesting the opposite parties and wrote various letters to them to issue duplicate transfer letter but the opposite parties did not issue the same till date.
A perusal of evidence placed on file by the opposite parties reveals that some correspondence took place beween the opposite parties discussing that some amount is due against complainant due to which her file could not be processed whereas complainant kept on depositing the amounts as per demand of the opposite parties from time to time but till date duplicate transfer letter has not been issued to complainant.
Ex. C-22 is the letter vide which opposite parties demanded Rs. 5994/- on account of water and sewerage charges and Rs. 10,000/- on account of maintenance charges upto 3-06-2012. The complainant paid Rs. 6000/- on 21-8-2012 vide receipt No. 17307 (Ex. C-24) and Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt No. 3188 dated 21-8-12 (Ex. C-25).
Thereafter opposite parties vide letter Ex. C-27 demanded Rs. 14,408/- on account of water/sewerage charges and maintenance charges of Rs. 45,000/- upto 3-4-2016. The complainant vide receipt No. 23052 dated 14-9-2016 (C-28) paid Rs. 16,382/- as water/sewerage charges and paid Rs. 45,000/- vide receipt No. 4025 dated 15-9-2016 (Ex. C-29) being maintenance charges.
The opposite parties have also placed on file letter dated 30-1-2018 (Ex. OP-2/22) showing that an amount of Rs. 42,000/- outstanding against complainant on account of water/sewerage charges to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- upto 31-12-17 and Rs. 30,000/- on account of maintenance charges upto 30-9-2017. Vide this letter, the opposite parties intimated the complainant that her case could not be processed as above detailed amount is outstanding against her and next action will only be taken after deposit of due amount by her.
The ownership of plot in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 13-5-2011 vide Ex. OP-2/7 after clearance of all dues and thereafter also complainant paid all the dues. The aforesaid demand of Rs. 42,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- pertains to the year 2017-18. Moreover, in the case in hand, the complainant has not demanded No Due Certificate/No Objection Certificate. The complainant has submitted requisite documents i.e. affidavit, DDR and fee and applied for the duplicate transfer letter of plot ownership of which already stands transferred in her name. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the duplicate transfer letter to her despite her repeated requests.
The opposite parties vide letter No. 299 dated 26-7-2011 (Ex. C-23) asked the complainant that construction on plot No. 96 has not been started. The opposite parties vide this letter advised the complainant to start construction according to approved/sanctioned map otherwise maintenance charges @ Rs. 20/- per Sq. ft. would be charged.
The complainant alleged that she could not start construction as opposite parties did not provide her approved/sanctioned map despite her repeated requests. The complainant has placed on file letters Ex. C-33 & Ex. C-34 whereby she requested the opposite parties to provide approved/sanctioned map, but no evidence has been placed on file by complainant to prove that she ever applied or submitted map with the opposite parties for sanction or paid any fee, if any payable, in this regard to the opposite parties.
So far as water/sewerage connection charges are concerned, the water/sewerage connections were got released by the plot holder and none applied to get these connections disconnected. Moreover, as discussed above, complainant paid these charges of her own free will and did not raise any objection while depositing the same. As far as the maintenance of residential housing complex is concerned, in our view it is the duty and liability of all the residents and plot holders of housing complex as maintenance is continuing process and needed for proper enjoyment of amenities of housing complex otherwise due to non-maintenance in time, housing complex would not remain liveable. Thus, this Commission is of the considered opinion that complainant is liable to pay water/sewerage/maintenance charges as per rules of the opposite parties and terms and conditions agreed between the parties at the time of allotment of plot.
Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No. 2 & 5. The opposite parties No. 2 & 5 are directed to issue duplicate transfer letter to complainant. The opposite parties No. 2 & 5 are further directed to issue sanctioned map to complainant after getting the required documents and fee, as per their rules.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties No. 2 & 5 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced :
24-5-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
