State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Sohan Lal Kundi on 19 May, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.871 of 2016
Date of Institution : 18.11.2016
Order Reserved on: 16.05.2017
Date of Decision : 19.05.2017
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
Sohan Lal Kundi S/o Jagat Ram, R/o House No.32, Model House,
Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against order dated
20.09.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate ............................................ J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Challenge in this appeal is to order dated 20.09.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar (in short the 'District Forum) directing the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.6,24,800/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the respondent of this appeal from the date of receipt of the amount till the payment, besides cost of litigation Rs.3000/-. The respondent of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before the District Forum and appellant of this appeal is opposite party therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.First Appeal No.871 of 2016 2
2. Short facts of complaint instituted by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP are that OP launched a scheme of 51.5 acres development scheme under the name of lig flats Bibi Bhani Complex, Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Jalandhar under self financing scheme. The complainant applied for allotment of flat in above scheme by depositing Rs.6,00,000/-, vide draft no.962597 dated 26.02.2009 drawn on UCO Bank, Jalandhar in favour of OP. OP allotted lig flat no.7A at first floor to the complainant, vide allotment letter no.7004 dated 28.01.2010. The complainant deposited Rs.1,04,342/-, as cess charges plus agreement and photography fee, vide receipt no.38819/37116 dated 15.02.2010, as per allotment letter. The complainant regularly deposited the instalments no.1 to 10 with OP from 19.07.2010 to 11.07.2012 of Rs.42,360/- each. On receipt of full payment, agreement of sale was executed by it in favour of the complainant, bearing no.1137. Possession of the flat was not given to complainant despite receipt of full and final payments. The complainant approached OPs by sending letters dated 10.07.2014, 23.07.2014 and 05.08.2014, but to no effect. The OP neither sent any reply nor delivered the possession of flat to complainant. The complainant was surprised to find that construction of flat no.7A at first floor did not start and plinths were not filled. Some of incomplete flats were in existence at the spot, even there was no possibility of completion of the flats in near future. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount with interest @18% per annum from the OP, First Appeal No.871 of 2016 3 being consumer of OP. Legal notice was also sent to OP on 15.09.2014 in this regard, but to no effect. The complainant even filed an application under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1887 for settlement of the dispute before the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Jalandhar and the same was dismissed for want of appearance of the respondent. The complainant, thus, filed the complaint praying for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.6,24,800/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complaint is alleged to be false and frivolous. The complaint has been filed just to harass the OP only, which is without any cause of action. The OP admitted that construction work has been delayed due to ongoing litigations regarding the area covered under scheme. There is no deliberate delay on the part of OPs in this regard. The OPs cannot be held liable for any delay. The OP wanted to complete the project and to deliver the possession of the flats as soon as possible. The OP denied the averments of the complainant regarding the refund of the amount and alleged compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith documents C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District First Appeal No.871 of 2016 4 Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing OP to refund the amount of Rs.6,24,800 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the payment. The District Forum further directed OP to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by order of the District Forum, OP now appellant, has preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case. The evidence on the record has been alluded to by us for resolution of the dispute in this case. Affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-A on the record. He testified the averments contained in complaint on oath in this affidavit. Ex.C-1 is the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat Jalandhar, giving opportunity to complainant to avail remedy in the proper Forum in accordance with law. It is evident from perusal of this order Ex.C-1 that the case of the complainant was not finally settled at Permanent Lok Adalat Jalandhar and rather it relegated the complainant to the appropriate Forum for seeking the relief. Legal notice sent to OP by complainant is Ex.C-2 on the record duly supported by postal receipt Ex.C-3. Ex.C-4 is application from complainant to OP for refund of the deposited amount with interest @18% per annum, besides compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.C-5 and C-6 are the letters addressed to OP by the complainant. The agreement of sale is Ex.C-7 on the record. It has proved this fact that complainant deposited the amount of Rs.5,64,80 with OP. Ex.C-8 to C-13 are the receipts for payment made by complainant to OP. Ex.C-14 is the receipt of deposit of Rs.60,000/- with OP by the First Appeal No.871 of 2016 5 complainant. Ex.C-15 is the allotment letter dated 28.01.2010. To counter this evidence; OP relied upon affidavit of Jatinder Singh, Executive Officer of OP Ex.OP/A. He stated that delay has not been caused deliberately by the OP. The OP wanted to complete the project for delivery of possession to the allottees, but due to pending litigation, above said delay has been caused.
6. The submission of counsel for the appellant is that as per Ex.C-7 Agreement for sale, clause 13, the complainant has first to approach the Secretary, Government of Punjab. In view of Section 3 of C.P. Act, we find no merit in this submission of counsel for the appellant. This contention of the appellant stands repelled by us. The next submission of counsel for the appellant is that due to pending litigation before Civil Court Jalandhar qua this matter, OP was handicapped in completing the project and to deliver the possession of the allotted flats. The matter is still in the toss and we cannot say as to when the litigation would be ended between the parties. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period in this regard. The construction is yet to take off on the site. The District Forum has, thus, correctly ordered to refund the deposited amount of Rs.6,24,800/- deposited by the complainant with OP alongwith interest @9% per annum from date of deposit till payment and cost of litigation of Rs.3000/-. We have not come across any illegality or perversity in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal. We also draw force from law laid down by the National Commission in revision petition no.225 of 2017 titled as "Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Swarn Jeet", decided on 16.03.2017. First Appeal No.871 of 2016 6
7. As a result of our above discussion, the order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal suffers from no flaw and same is affirmed in this appeal. The appeal is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited the amount of Rs.2,20,109/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent of this appeal, being complainant, by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of period of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
9. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER May 19, 2017 MM