| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 306 of 23-10-2017 Decided on : 25-05-2022 Sukhveer Kaur aged about 36 years W/o Harcharan Singh , R/o Vill. Bangi Ruldu Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, now R/o Plot No. 1101, UE Phase 4 &5, BDA Enclave, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority/Bathinda Development Authority, BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer .......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. H S Dhanoa, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh. N P Singh, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Sukhveer Kaur (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 Bathinda Development Authority (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 1st October, 2010, opposite party invited applications for allotment of 816 free hold residential plots in U.E Phase 4 & 5 (BDA Enclave), Bathinda. The draw was held on 17-3-2011 and complainant was successful. Plot No. 1101 at U.E. Phase 4 & 5 (BDA Enclave) measuring 150 Sq. Yard was allotted to complainant and letter of intent No. EO/BDA/BTI/1686 dated 2-5-2011 was issued to her. It is alleged that as per terms and conditions of the scheme, applicant was required to deposit 10% amount as earnest money, 15% after allotment of plot, 70% within 30 days from the date of issuance of letter of intent. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,65,000/- being 10% as earnest money at the time of applying for the plot. Thereafter she deposited Rs. 2,47,500/- being 15% of total sale consideration amount, after issuance of letter of intent dated 2-5-2011. After that complainant executed Tripartite agreement with the opposite party and State Bank of Patiala in the month of September, 2011 and State Bank of Patiala after completing the whole formalities sanctioned the loan amount in favour of the complainant and remaining 70% amount i.e. Rs. 10,39,500/- was made through two transactions No. MDD/AF 721045 and 721046 on 24-9-2011. In this way, 95% of total price of plot was paid by complainant upto November, 2011. The complainant further alleged that as per terms and conditions of the scheme, 5% of the price of tentative amount was to be paid at the time of deivery of possession of the plot. The opposite party did not deliver the possession of the plot in question till 24-05-2016 to the complainant. It is further alleged that opposite party through letter no. BDA-E0-BTI-2014/1487 dated 05-03-2014 demanded a sum equivalent to 5% i.e. Rs. 82500/- from the complainant, although the same was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession of plot. The opposite party also demanded a sum of Rs. 33,000/- as imposed through policy of state government "The Punjab State Cancer and Drug Addiction Treatment Infrastructure Fund. The complainant through Demand Draft No. 69638 dated 05-04-2014 of State Bank of Patiala, paid a sum of Rs. 82,500/-only to the opposite party being 5% of tentative amount. However the complainant could not make the other payment due to her poor circumstances. The complainant also alleged that opposite party issued letter No. E.0./B.D.A./BT1/2015/695 dated 16-02-2015 to the complainant mentioning therein that due to some problem, the possession of plot in question could not be delivered to the complainant and if the complainant is ready to take possession of some other plot except plot No. 1101, then the opposite party can consider for the same, but the complainant vide leter 24-07-2015 refused to take some other plot in place of plot No. 1101. It is also alleged that thereafter, opposite party vide letter No. E0/BDA/BT1/2016/3798 dated 24-05-2016 offered possession of plot of said plot No. 1101 to complainant and in May, 2016, complainant took possession of plot in question. The complainant further alleged that she paid total consideration amount i.e. 100% to the opposite party within stipulated period as per letter of intent. Thereafter on 17-05-2017, complainant applied for No Due Certificate against her plot No 1101. Then, the opposite party raised a demand of Rs. 15,050/- as non-construction charges vide letter No. EO/BDA/BT1/2017/1307 dated 31-05-2 017 from the complainant although possession of plot No. 1101 was given to the complainant in the month of May 2016. The complainant vide letter dated 31-05-2017 requested the opposite party for cancellation of non-construction charges i.e. Rs. 15,050/- and accordingly opposite party cancelled non-construction charges. The complainant alleged that opposite party vide letter no. E0/BDA/BTI/21T7/1810 dated 17-07-2017 informed the complainant that as per report of accounts branch, an amount of Rs. 1,21,720/- was outstanding against complainant in connection with plot No. 167 BDA Enclave, phase 4 & 5, Bathinda, for the period from 20-03-2017 to 31-12-2017 and when complainant visited opposite party, it was disclosed to her that said letter was wrongly sent and there is no outstanding against the complainant and within few days, No Due Certificate would be issued. The complainant further alleged that thereafter she received letter No. EO/ BDA/BTI/2017/5046 dated 02-08-2017 vide which opposite party raised demand of Rs. 3,21,600/- from the complainant on the ground that as per report of accounts branch said amount is outstanding against the complainant for the period till 31-07-2017, but no detail of amount was given. The complainant alleged that she has been repeatedly requesting the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate against her plot in question as she has paid the whole consideration amount within stipulated period, but to no effect. Due to said act of the opposite party, the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, for which she claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to honour her lawful claim as per terms and conditions of the allotment and also pay to her Rs. 80,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that complainant is not consumer. That the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. That the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. That this Commission has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint u/s 174 of PUDA Act as well on the basis of terms and condition No. 20 of allocation letter. That complaint involves intricate questions of law and facts, which cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the 'Act'. That complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, the opposite party has pleaded that opposite party did not execute the tripartite agreement. The complainant deposited Rs. 10,39,500/- willingly. She never contacted opposite party regarding remaining due amount and Rs. 10,39,500/- was not lump sum amount. The opposite party has further pleaded that opposite party sent letter No. 695 dated 16-2-2015 to the complainant and informed her that possession of plot No. 1101 cannot be delivered due to some problem and offered him another plot of 100 Sq. Yards or 200 Sq. Yards in the same scheme in place of said plot No. 1101, but she did not accept the said offer. It has been also pleaded that letter No. 1810 dated 17-07-2017 related to plot No, 167 was wrongly sent to the complainant which was cancelled and vide letter No. 5046 dated 02-08-2017, the opposite party raised demand of due amount of Rs. 3,21,600/- up to 31-07-2017 as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter as well as rules and regulations of PUDA/ BDA. The said demand of due amount of Rs. 3,21,600/- up to 31-07-3017 is legal, valid and as per law. No Due Certificate cannot be issued without clearance of above said dues. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of her complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-22) and the documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-21). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinod Kumar Bansal (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/5). 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. In the case in hand, the grudge of the complainant is that despite clearance of all dues, opposite party is not issuing No Due Certificate to her in connection with her plot 1101 and U.E. Phase 4 & 5 (BDA Enclave Bathinda). Ex. C-1 is the Letter of Intent dated 2-5-2011 issued to complainant by the opposite party for allotment of residential Plot measing 150 Sq. Yds in General Category bearing No. 1101 at UE, Phase 4 & 5 (BDA Enclave), Bathinda The learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant deposited the entire price of the plot within stipulated period as asked by the opposite parties whereas the possession of plot was delivered to the complainant in May, 2016. He further submitted that despite payment of entire price, opposite party is not issuing No Due Certificate to the complainant despite various requests. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the opposite party is that an amount of Rs.3,21,600/- is outstanding against the complainant till 31-7-2017 as detailed in Ex. OP-1/4, due to which No Due Certificate was not issued to her. As per letter Ex. C-1, a sum of Rs. 2,47,500/- being 15% of the total price of plot was to be paid within 30 days from the date of issuance of letter of intent. According to aforesaid letter of Intent, two options were given to the complainant i.e. Option 'A' and Option 'B'. As per Option 'A' - A Sum of Rs. 10,39,500/- being 70% of total price of the plot after giving 10% rebate on balance principal amount was to be deposited within 60 days from the date of issue of letter of intent i.e. on or before 30-6-2011. According to Option 'B' – Balance 70% of the total price of the plot was to be deposited in 7 half yearly installments alongwith interest @12% p.a. and installment was duly detailed in letter of intent. It was further mentioned in letter of intent that in case of payment made under option 'B', the entire outstanding payment can be made in lumpsum at any time against which a rebate of 5% on the oustanding pricipal amount shall be allowed which would be further subjected to if three or more installments are pending when the lumpsum payment is being made. A sum equivant to 5% (Rs. 82,500/-) + 5% extra in case of corner/facing park etc., plot was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. A perusal of file reveals that complainant deposited 10% amount of tentative price i.e. 1,65,000/- to the opposite party being earnest money alongwith application. Thereafter opposite party issued aforesaid letter of Intent dated 2-05-2011 (Ex. C-1) to the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs. 2,47,500/- being 15% of the total sale consideration of plot in question on 31-5-2011 vide demand draft (Ex. C-2). To pay the balance 70% price of the plot as detailed above in schedule of payment, the complainant borrowed loan from State Bank of Patiala to pay the remaining amount in lump sum and in this regard, tripartite agreement (Ex. C-4) was executed between the parties and the said bank paid Rs. 10,39,500/- to opposite party on 24-9-2011. The remaining 5% of the price of the plot i.e. Rs. 82,500/- was to be paid at the time of possession of plot. The possession of plot was delivered to complainant on 26-5-2016 (Ex. C-12) but the opposite parties demanded 5% of price vide letter dated 5-3-2014 (Ex. C-10) and complainant deposited the same vide receipt dated 7-4-2014 (Ex. C-21). A perusal of document Ex. C-4 reveals that complainant got sanctioned loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- for purchase of this plot and opposite party vide document Ex. C-19 gave approval to complainant to mortgage said plot against loan of Rs. 10,39,500/- being 70% amount of total amount of plot. The said amount of Rs. 10,39,500/- was directly paid by Bank to opposite party under tripartite agreement. As per documents produced by complainant, she deposited the whole amount and as per letter of Intent dated 2-5-2011 (Ex. C-5), possession of plot was to be given within 15 months upto 1-8-2012 but opposite party delivered possession of plot on 25-5-2016 and thereafter when complainant asked for No Objection Certificate, then the opposite party suddenly woke-up and started demanding Rs., 3,21,600/- being balance amount. Therefore, if opposite party would have taken proper action considering the case thoroughly and informed the complainant right position, complainant could have deposited more amount. The complainant even deposited 5% price i.e. Rs, 82,500/- in advance in 2014 whereas possession of plot was delivered to her in May, 2016 meaning thereby that opposite party used the said amount of complainant without giving her any interest. Now, at this stage, opposite party is not justified to demand Rs. 3,21,000/-, as detailed in Ex. OP-1/4, from complainant for no fault on her part. Therefore, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that complainant has paid the entire price of plot in lump sum as asked by the opposite party and also availed loan from State Bank of Patiala and she must be paying interest on availed loan amount. We are of the opinion that opposite parties are deficient in service as when it is the fault of the opposite party in calculation, then why should complainant suffer and pay penalty. No one else can be purnished for someone else's mistake, if any. The opposite party can punish the official who committed mistake. We further feel that opposite party is punishing complainant for mistake of its official, which is totally wrong. Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to help the consumers. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party is directed to issue No Objection Certificate to complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite party 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 covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 25-5-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
