National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Arvindjeet Singh vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. on 1 October, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 62 OF 2016 1. ARVINDJEET SINGH S/o. Sh. Ram Lal, R/o. H. No. 555-B, Yamuna Enclave, Panipat Haryana - 132 103. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANR. Through its Executive Office, (Residential Plot in Surya Enclave Extension) Jalandhar 2. Executive Officer, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar Punjab. ...........Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Karan Dewan, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate Dated : 01 Oct 2019 ORDER JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The present consumer complaint is filed by the complainant alleging that the opposite parties had floated a scheme for freehold residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar commencing from 08.08.2011. The complainant also submitted his application for purchase of 500 sq. yard plot and paid the earnest money of Rs.8,50,000/-. Vide allotment letter dated 23.12.011 / 11.01.2012. a residential plot no. 52-C was allotted to him for consideration of Rs.79,90,950/-. He paid total amount of Rs.71,47,635/- but the possession was never handed over to him. It is also contended that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had issued an order of maintaining status quo in respect of said land. But despite this order of status quo, the opposite party in violation of said order had floated the scheme of allotment of plot and, therefore, they are also guilty of unfair trade practices. The following prayers are made by the complainant:
"(i) Refund the amount of Rs.71,47,635/- ( Rs. Seventy one lacs forty seven thousand six hundred and thirty five only) deposited by the complainant with opposite parties alongwith interest @ 16% per annum from the date of deposits till its realizations;
(ii) The opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and on account mental agony and harassment;
(iii) The opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.77,000/- as litigation expenses;
(iv) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice may also be granted to the complainant."
2. Written statement was filed by the opposite party. Floating of the scheme, allotmet of plot no. 52-C to the complainant, are not disputed Several contentions, however, have been raised by the opposite parties.
3. The complainant has submitted that it is a covered case. It is submitted that another allottee, namely, Munish Dev Sharma in the same scheme had filed complaint no. 81 of 2013 before the State Commission and vide order dated 30.07.2014, the State Commission while allowing the complaint issued the following directions:
"i. To refund Rs.28,22,950/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii. to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation; and iii. to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs"
4. The opposite party impugned the said order in Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 before this Commission and after considering the contentions of the parties on merit, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2015. It is submitted that opposite party challenged the said order dated 01.07.2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9294 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No. 9295 of 2015 and Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 02.11.2015 upheld the order and thereby confirmed the order of the State Commission. It is prayed that similar order of refund of Rs.71,47,635/- be passed in his favour.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has not disputed these contentions.
6. I have perused the relevant order relied upon by the complainant in support of his contention that it is a covered case. I am satisfied that complainant's case is similar to the case of the complainant Munish Dev Sharma in complaint no. 81 of 2013 in which the State Commission had passed the order as mentioned above and which order was upheld by this Commission in Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 and further by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9294 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No. 9295 of 2015.
7. Since it is a covered case, while allowing the complaint, I issue the following directions :
i. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.71,47,635/- ( Rupees Seventy One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five only ) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as compensation; and iii. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation costs.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER