Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/106

Nirmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :      106

Date of Institution:  26.04.2016

Date of Decision :    06.12.2016

 

Nirmal Singh s/o sh Sukhchain Singh r/o New Harindra Nagar, Street No. 4, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.      

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Bathinda, PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its  Estate Officer.

                     ....Opposite parties (Ops)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.

                   

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the principal amount of Rs.1,17,000/-paid by complainant as earnest money alongwith interest and to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses.

2                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OP allotted plots at PUDA Enclave, Baba Farid University, Faridkot on 7.05.2012 and plot no. 14, which was purchased by one Kamaljit Singh was later on transferred in the name of complainant by OPs with due course of law. Earlier the plot no.14 was of 250 square yards but lateron its area was reduced from 250 square yards to 226 sq. Yards and after reduction in its area, its instalment was also required to be reduced and when complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP, they refused to listen to his request. Complainant requested them to refund the excess amount paid by complainant, but OP flatly refused to do so. Excess amount of Rs.1,17,000/-paid by complainant to OP is required to be refunded and complainant also issued legal notice to OP with request to redress his grievance, but to no effect. It is further submitted that complainant has paid six instalments to OPs and only one instalment is about to be paid and when complainant requested OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,17,000/-with interest or to adjust the same in future instalments, OP flatly refused to do so. Complainant visited the office of OP and made many request to refund the extra amount received by them from complainant, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great loss to him for which he has prayed for compensation alongwith main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                     The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.05.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                    On receipt of notice, OPs appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint is without any cause of action because the price of reduced area of plot is ordered to be adjusted in due instalments of plot. On 3.06.2015, OP have adjusted the amount of Rs.1,17,000/-in due instalments and rescheduling of due instalments was made by OP and same was also conveyed to complainant. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant was entitled for adjustment of price of excess area of plot and accordingly, same was adjusted in the remaining due instalments of plot vide order dt 3.06.2015 and now, no question of refund of any money arises at all. Moreover, OP have never refused to listen the complainant and his request was duly considered and excess amount stands adjusted in remaining instalments of the plot. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

6                           In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjant Singh as Ex OP-1, document Ex OP-2 to 6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                           Ld Counsel for complainant has argued that OP allotted plots at PUDA Enclave, Baba Farid University, Faridkot on 7.05.2012 and plot no. 14, which was purchased by one Kamaljit Singh was later on transferred in the name of complainant by OPs  and earlier this plot no.14 was of 250 square yards but later on its area was reduced from 250 square yards to 226 sq. Yards and after reduction in its area, its instalment was also required to be reduced and when complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP, they refused to do so. Complainant requested them to refund the excess amount paid by him, but OP flatly refused it. Excess amount of Rs.1,17,000/-paid by complainant to OP is required to be refunded and complainant also issued legal notice to OP with request to refund the same, but to no effect. It is further submitted that complainant has paid six instalments to OPs and only one instalment is about to be paid and when complainant requested OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,17,000/-with interest or to adjust the same in future instalments, OP flatly refused to do so. Complainant made many requests to refund the extra amount received by them from complainant, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith main relief and compensation and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 6.

8                         Ld Counsel for OPs argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the agreement. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is further averred that complaint is without any cause of action as price of area of plot in question reduced was ordered to be adjusted in due instalments of plot and on 3.06.2015, OP adjusted the amount of Rs.1,17,000/-in due instalments in plot and rescheduling of due instalments was made by OP and same was conveyed to complainant. It is admitted by OP that complainant was entitled for adjustment of price of excess area of plot and accordingly same was done in remaining due instalments vide order dt 3.06.2015 and now, there is no question of refund of any money to complainant. All the other allegations alongwith allegation of relief sought have been denied. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

10                       The case of the complainant is that OP allotted plots at PUDA Enclave, Baba Farid University, Faridkot on 7.05.2012 and plot no. 14, which was purchased by one Kamaljit Singh was later on transferred in the name of complainant. Earlier the plot no.14 was of 250 square yards but later on its area was reduced from 250 square yards to 226 sq. Yards and after reduction in its area, its instalment was also required to be reduced and when complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP, they refused to listen to his request. Complainant requested for refunding the excess amount paid by him, but OP refused to do so. Excess amount of Rs.1,17,000/-paid by complainant is required to be refunded and complainant also issued legal notice to OP with request to redress his grievance, but to no effect. Complainant visited the office of OP and made many requests to get refund of extra amount paid by him, but all in vain. On the other hand, OP themselves admitted that complainant was entitled for adjustment of price of excess area of plot and accordingly same was done in remaining due instalments vide order dt 3.06.2015. The stand of OP is that they have already adjusted the amount of Rs.1,17,000/-in due instalments in plot and rescheduling of due instalments was made by them and same was duly conveyed to complainant. It is admitted by OP that complainant was entitled for adjustment of price of excess area of plot and accordingly requisite adjustment was done vide order dt 3.06.2015 and now, there is no question of refund of any money to complainant.

11                 After  careful  perusal of the record and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, we have  come to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for adjustment of price of excess area of plot and accordingly adjustment has also been done by OPs vide order dt 3.06.2015. It has come to the notice of this Forum that OPs have made adjustment on principal amount and adjusted the amount of Rs.1,17,000/-vide order dated 3.06.2015 in subsequent instalments. But on careful perusal of record, it is observed that earlier they calculated interest on plot value of 250 square yards i.e on its original cost price of Rs.12,50,000/- at the rate of Rs.5000/-per square yards, but later on as the size of plot in question  was reduced from 250 to 226 square yards, therefore, as its cost price was reduced to Rs.11,33,300/-the actual price of plot and OPs were entitled for interest only on this amount, therefore, interest should also have been reduced from the beginning of first instalments, rather than only from 3.06.2015. OPs have reduced rate of cost price of said plot, they should also have reduced the interest from beginning on actual price of plot, which they have not done. Therefore, OPs are required to recalculate interest on reduced price of plot in question from the beginning and not only from 3.06.2015.

12                                       From the above discussion, it is made out that complainant has fully succeeded in proving his case and is entitled for refund of excess interest money deposited by him as price of plot. Ops are liable for deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to OPs to refund excess interest calculated by them on amount of Rs.12,50,000/-instead of Rs.11,33,300/- the actual price of plot from 7.05.2012 to 3.06.2015 alongwith interest at the rate of  9 % per anum from the date of filing this complaint till its final realization or to adjust this amount in balance instalment due towards the complainant out of total price of plot in question. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant. OPs   are   directed   to   comply   with   the  order  within   one   month   from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order,  failing  which  complainant  shall be entitled to initiate  proceedings  under   section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 6.12.2016        

Member                President             (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)