State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pushpit Alagh vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust on 25 July, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.210 of 2022
Date of institution : 21.03.2022
Reserved on : 18.07.2022
Date of decision : 25.07.2022
Pushpit Alagh, aged about 32 years, S/o Sh.Ujagar Pal Singh, Resident of
N.M.4, Circular Road, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar City, through his attorney
Ujagar Pal Singh son of Gobind Singh, Resident of N.M. 4, Circular Road,
Patel Chowk, Jalandhar City Punjab.
Email: [email protected]. Mobile:9815120786
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Near Skylark Chowk,
Jalandhar City, through its Executive Officer.
Email: [email protected] Phone: 0181-2459824/2459821
.......Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal U/S 41 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 against the Order dated 24.01.2022
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh.K.S.Dhillon, Advocate
For the respondent : None
URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER
Appellant/Complainant-Pushpit Alagh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') to challenge the impugned Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the District F.A.No.210 of 2022 2 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short 'the District Commission') whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed with the directions to OP to refund the total amount paid for the purchase of the plot along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. It was further directed to pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that the complainant being attracted by advertisement of opposite party, submitted an application No.092021 on prescribed form alongwith all requisite documents for allotment of plot. He also availed loan assistance from Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Jalandhar and deposited an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- (10%). He was allotted plot No.361-D, measuring 200 sq. yd. in Surya Enclave Extension Scheme in Jalandhar vide allotment letter No.829 dated 06.06.2016 as per lucky draw dated 19.05.2016. The OP did not develop the area as agreed and promised within stipulated period despite period of seven years. Being disappointed due to non-development of the scheme, the complainant stopped the payment of subsequent installments. In absence of required facilities, it was not practically possible to start the construction work over the allotted plot. It was further mentioned that the complainant alongwith representatives/allottees met Dr.Basant, the Chairman of OP Trust and lodged complaint but there was no progress. It was further alleged in the complaint that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complainant prayed for refund of Rs.3,40,000/- F.A.No.210 of 2022 3 deposited by the complainant along with interest @18% till the date of actual payment; to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-for mental tension, pain and agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- as cost of proceedings.
4. Upon notice, OP filed written reply and contested the complaint by raising certain preliminary objections that the complainant was not 'consumer' and the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant did not hire the services of housing. The opposite party also denied the other averments made by the complainant and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
5. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, contents of complaint, reply thereof and on hearing the arguments, the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 24.01.2022 as under:-
"In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant for the purchase of the plot along with interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit the payment, till realization and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order."
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the District Commission regarding the award of rate of interest @ 6% by the F.A.No.210 of 2022 4 District Commission, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of rate of interest.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contends that the District Commission has failed to consider that the opposite party itself charged interest @ 11% to 16% per annum on late payment and on same analogy, the allottee-appellant is also entitled to the same rate of interest. In any case, the complainant is held entitled to 9% interest per annum.
8. We have gone through the record carefully and heard the learned counsel for the appellants. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nor written arguments have been filed. Even at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/OP.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant in support of his contentions relied upon judgments i.e. Naranjan Dass Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Appeal No.68 of 2021, decided on 03.09.201 and Seema Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Appeal No.69 of 2021, decided on 03.09.2021 by this Commission, whereby the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission was enhanced from 6% p.a. to 9% p.a. The rate of interest @ 9% p.a., was also held to be reasonable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7869-7876 of 2019 (Improvement Trust Barnala V. Balbir Singh etc.) to be reasonable.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Order is modified to the extent that the rate of interest as awarded by the District Commission is enhanced from 6% p.a. to 9% per annum, which shall be paid on the refundable amount as ordered by the District F.A.No.210 of 2022 5 Commission from the respective dates of deposit till realization and the remaining directions in the order shall remain the same.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and the pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER July 25, 2022 (Rupinder 2)