State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Improvement Trust, Sangrur vs Rupinder Chawla on 8 April, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.893 of 2005.
Date of Institution: 05.07.2005.
Date of Decision: 08.04.2011.
1. Improvement Trust, Sangrur, through its Executive Officer.
2. Chairman, Improvement Trust, Sangrur.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Rupinder Chawla S/o Sh. Sunder Lal Chawla, Resident of Kothi No.92, JP
Nagar, Sangrur, Tehsil & District Sangrur.
.....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
11.05.2005 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Ms Madhu P. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. S.K. Arora, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Apeal No.893 of 2005 (Improvement Trust, Sangrur Vs Rupinder Chawla) and First Appeal No.1033 of 2005 (Rupinder Chawla Vs. Improvement Trust, Sangrur), as both the appeals are directed against the same impugned order dated 11.05.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District Forum"). The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 893 of 2005' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant-Improvement Trust, Sangrur made advertisement regarding the allotment of plots in 23.66 Acre Captain Karam Singh Nagar Scheme, Sangrur. The respondent applied for the plot and in the draw, plot no.71 measuring 200 sq.yds. under the above scheme First Appeal No.893 of 2005 2 was allotted to the respondent vide memo no.1921 dated 17.04.2001. Plot No.72 was transferred in the name of the respondent by the appellants vide memo no.1147 dated 13.11.2003 and all the installments along with interest were paid.
3. A sum of Rs.28,000/- was deposited as earnest money on 29.11.2000 vide receipt no.08228. The respondent also deposited Rs.51,290/- on 30.03.2001 vide receipt no.08462; Rs.1,90,000/- on 19.04.2001 vide receipt no.08543; Rs.21,272/- vide receipt no.09046 dated 22.10.2001; Rs.15,128/- vide receipt no.09084 dated 31.10.2001; Rs. 16,150/- vide receipt no.9550 dated 17.06.2002; Rs.7500/- vide receipt no.10543 dated 02.06.2004 and Rs. 13,720/- vide receipt no.10555 dated 11.06.2004 besides others in respect of plot no.71. A sum of Rs.28,000/- was deposited as earnest money on 29.11.2000 vide receipt no.08229; Rs.2,14,200/- were deposited as entire price on 19.04.2001 vide receipt no.08544; Rs.44,850/- on 30.08.2001 vide receipt no.08463; Rs.7500/- as non-construction fee on 02.06.2004 vide receipt no.10544 besides others in respect of plot no.72.
4. The possession of the plot was to be delivered to the respondent at the time of deposit of 1/4th amount of the cost after providing all the basic amenities like water, sewerage, roads, electricity, park etc. Facilities of park and tubewell were also to be provided by the appellants as per the promises made in the advertisement, but the appellants failed to supply the possession after providing the basic amenities. The respondent visited the office of the appellants and requested them to provide the basic amenities, but of no use. The respondent also filed an application, asking them to provide the basic amenities, but the same were not provided and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. A legal notice was also sent but the appellants did not bother. The appellants have caused a great loss and mental agony to the respondent. A large number of other First Appeal No.893 of 2005 3 persons to whom the plots were allotted, filed complaints before the District Forum which were accepted and the appellants were directed to deliver the possession at the spot, to provide the basic amenities and not to charge interest on the installments till the basic amenities are provided. The rate of construction has gone up since the date of allotment. The appellants failed to give electric connection for supply of electricity at the spot. No transformer has been installed at the spot and the appellants failed to provide water or sewerage connection to any of the allottees and as such, the appellants cannot charge non-construction fee without providing the basic amenities.
5. The appellants have even charged Rs.7500/- as non- construction fee in respect of plot no.71 and Rs.7500/- in respect of plot no.72 and are further demanding non-construction fee. There is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and they are liable to refund the amount charged along with interest @ 18% p.a. and prayed that the appellants be directed to refund the interest recovered from the respondent upto date along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of recovery of interest till the refund and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the respondent till the basic amenities are provided. It was further prayed that the appellants be directed to refund the non-construction fee charged from the respondent, not to charge any penalty and to pay Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation, Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee and litigation expenses.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellants, it was admitted that plots no.71 and 72 were transferred in the name of the respondent and he deposited the amount as mentioned above except Rs.13,720/- vide receipt no.10255 dated 11.06.2004. This amount was deposited by the respondent on account of fee for sanctioning the site plan of plots no.71 and 72. The appellant-Trust issued the letters dated 11.04.2001 and 17.04.2001 for taking the possession of these plots to the respondent. The basic amenities were First Appeal No.893 of 2005 4 provided much prior to the filing of the present complaint. The respondent gave undertaking/affidavit for depositing the non-construction fee and to abide by all the terms and conditions of the appellants. The respondent failed to complete the construction on the plots in question as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and, thus, he was liable to pay the amount of non-construction fee as well as other charges and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
7. The possession is already with the respondent and the complaint is false. The foundation of the plots was constructed by the respondent before filing the present complaint. The appellant-Trust is entitled to charge the interest, non-construction fee and other charges as per the instructions of the Local Govt. Punjab. The complaint is time barred. Other legal objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi were also raised and denying all other allegations, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
8. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the process of providing the basic amenities was completed on 18.11.2002, if not earlier, as per letter Ex.R17 and affidavit Ex.R13 and possession of the plots was taken by the respondent and relying upon a number of authorities, held that it is a case of deficiency in service and allowed the complaint partly, directing the appellants to:-
a) refund to the respondent (complainant) the amount of interest upto 17.11.2002 received from him on the installment of the price of plot no.71.
b) pay compensation to the respondent in the form of interest on the principal amount of price of plot no.71 from the date of deposit upto 17.11.2002 @ 12% per annum.
First Appeal No.893 of 2005 5
c) to refund to the respondent the amount of penalty/non-construction fee received from him in respect of plots number 71 & 72 and
d) to pay him a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.05.2005, the appellants-Improvement Trust, Sangrur have come up in appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 11.05.2005 and to dismiss the complaint with costs. Whereas, the respondent/complainant has filed cross appeal i.e. First Appeal No.1033 of 2005 titled as "Rupinder Chawla. Vs. Improvement Trust, Sangrur", praying that the impugned order dated 11.05.2005 may be modified by accepting the complaint in-toto and sought directions to the appellants to issue conveyance deed of the plots in question.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the District Forum and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the basic amenities were provided in the year 2002. The respondent is subsequent purchaser and he is bound to obey the terms and conditions of the allotment and as per condition no.7 of the allotment letter Ex.C5(Ex.R1), the respondent was to complete the building on the plot allotted within three years from the date of issue of the allotment letter, after getting the demarcation and the plan of the approved building approved from the Trust, but the respondent did not abide by these terms and conditions and as such, the respondent is liable to pay the non-construction charges as well as other charges levied by the Improvement Trust legally.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellants never provided the basic amenities and without providing the same, the construction could not be carried out. Even the possession was not delivered and the District Forum after discussing the First Appeal No.893 of 2005 6 entire evidence and material on file, allowed the complaint. The impugned order is valid and the appeal may be dismissed.
14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. As per letter of allotment Ex.C5(R1), plot no.71 measuring 200 sq.yds. was allotted to the respondent Rupinder Chawla on 17.04.2001. Plot No.72 was transferred in the name of the respondent on 13.11.2003 vide letter Ex.C7. As per letter Ex.R17 dated 18.11.2002, water supply and sewerage work was completed and thereafter, connections were given. The respondent has deposited the installments as per Ex.C6 and the receipts are Ex.C9 to Ex.C16. Vide Ex.C17, Rs.7500/- were deposited as non-construction fee on 02.06.2004 for plot no.71 and vide receipt Ex.C19, non-construction fee of Rs.7500/- was deposited on 02.06.2004 for plot no.72.
16. The basic amenities admittedly were provided on 18.11.2002 as per letter Ex.R17 and the installments, non-construction fee and fee for sanctioning of the site plan etc. were paid till June, 2004.
17. The next question which arises for consideration of this Commission is whether the appellants are entitled to recover the interest, non-construction fee etc. after three years of the allotment or after providing the basic amenities?
18. This question has been recently answered by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of the same Trust reported as "Improvement Trust, Sangrur Vs Poonam", 2010 CTJ-528(CP) (NCDRC), wherein relying upon Surinder Kaur's case (Revision Petition No.1339 of 2006 "Improvement Trust, Sangrur & Anr. Surinder Kaur & Anr."), the observation of that case was quoted as follows:-
"However, considering that there was delay of one year in providing the facilities as mentioned above, it would be just and proper to direct the petitioner Improvement Trust to grant three years period from November, 2002 to November, 2005 for construction of the premises First Appeal No.893 of 2005 7 and not to levy any non-construction penalty for the said period. In the result, the Revision Petitions are partly allowed. The order passed by the State Commission directing the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is set aside. The petitioner Improvement Trust is directed to grant three years period from November, 2002 to November, 2005 for construction of the premises and not to levy any non-construction penalty for the period, and, if levied, shall be refunded".
19. The above authority is applicable on all force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The District Forum has also relied upon a number of authorities and passed the impugned order. In view of the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the above noted case of the Improvement Trust, Sangrur itself, we find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the District Forum which is legal and valid. As such, the appeal filed by the appellants-Improvement Trust, Sangrur being without any merit, is dismissed and the impugned order dated 11.05.2005 under appeal is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
20. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued, if any, be remitted by the registry to Sh. Rupinder Chawla respondent/complainant, by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to appellants.
21. Remaining amount, if any, shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant Sh. Rupinder Chawla within two month from the receipt of copy of this order.
First Appeal No.1033 of 2005:-
22. The District Forum has granted the relief till the date of providing basic amenities by the appellants. As such, there is no need to make any modification in the impugned order under appeal. Accordingly, First Appeal First Appeal No.893 of 2005 8 No.1033 of 2005 "Rupinder Chawla Vs Improvement Trust, Sangrur & Anr.", is also dismissed. No order as to costs.
23. Arguments in both the appeals were heard on 31.03.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeals could no be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
25. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.1033 of 2005 (Rupinder Chawla Vs. Improvement Trust, Sangrur).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member April 8, 2011.
(Gurmeet Singh)