National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Faridkot Improvement Trust & 2 Ors. vs Naresh Kumar on 15 July, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 31/03/2017 in Appeal No. 305/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. FARIDKOT IMPROVEMENT TRUST & 2 ORS. Through the Chairman Faridkot Punjab 2. CHAIRMAN, THE FARIDKOT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, FARIDKOT PUNJAB 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE FARIDKOT OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST, FARIDKOT PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NARESH KUMAR S/o. Sh. Kishori Lal, R/o. # 91 (1), Village Goval Thai, Tehsil Shree Naina Devi, Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 15 Jul 2019 ORDER
For Faridkot Improvement Trust
:
Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Advocate
For Naresh Kumar, Gurjinder Singh and Pritpal Singh
:
Mr. Amit Punj, Advocate and
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainants who are the respondents in RP No.3449 of 2017, 2023 of 2017, 3471 of 2017 and 3808 of 2017, applied to the petitioner Faridkot Improvement Trust for allotment of residential plots in a scheme to be developed by the Trust. The applications were submitted pursuant to a Brochure issued by the Trust. Residential plots were allotted to them on the same date. The agreements in favour of the Trust were executed by two of them namely Naresh Kumar and Pritpal Singh. No agreement was executed by Gurjinder Singh. Clauses 9, 10, 14 & 29 of the brochure read as under:
9. No interest will be given on earnest money to the applicant. The plots are given on "as it is where it is basis".
10. The construction on plot will be compulsorily completed within three years of allotment. If allottee not do construction in 3 year than he have to deposited Non construction fees compulsorily. The office is not bound to give any notice in this regard.
14. The allottee has to execute sale agreement with the trust on stamp papers amounting Rs.2000 within 30 days of allotment and possession of plot to be taken within 30 days and in case of not doing so it will be assumed that allottee has taken possession, in condition to allotment of allottee remains. The allottee will not have right to claim anything more if the allottee do not take possession.
29. The size/area of plots may differ during the demarcation of the scheme. So the allottee will be liable to take plot "as it is where it is basis". The price of increase/decrease area of plot will be adjusted as per Govt. instructions.
2. The allotment letters issued to the complainants stipulated delivery of possession after the agreement. The allottee was made bound to raise construction within three years from the allotment. The allotment to Naresh Kumar, Gurjinder Singh and Pritpal Singh was made on 02.04.2014. Since the possession of the allotted plot was not offered to them, the complainants Gurjinder Singh and Naresh Kumar approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate Consumer Complaints, seeking refund of the amount which they had paid to the petitioner Trust alongwith appropriate compensation. The complainant Pritpal Singh however, sought delivery of possession of the allotted plot with compensation.
3. The complaints were resisted by the petitioner Trust, which admitted the allotment made to the complainants as well as the payment received from them. It was inter-alia stated in the written version filed by the Trust that they had already issued letter to the complainants asking them to take possession of the plot allotted to them. As regards the development work, it was stated in the written version of the Trust that the construction of roads and boundary walls was in progress and for laying underground sewerage pipes, permission was being sought from Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Moga.
4. The District Forum directed refund of the amount paid by Naresh Kumar and Gurjinder Singh to them alongwith interest and compensation. In case of Pritpal Singh, the delivery of possession was directed with compensation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the Trust preferred separate appeals before the concerned State Commission. Since Pritpal Singh was not satisfied with the compensation awarded to him by the State Commission, he also preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned orders, the State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by the Trust. The compensation awarded to Pritpal Singh was enhanced in the appeal preferred by him.
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the Trust as well as Pritpal Singh are before this Commission by way of these Revision Petitions.
6. As far as the complainants Gurjinder Singh and Naresh Kumar are concerned, their counsel states on instructions that they do not want to wait any more for taking possession of the allotted flat after completion of the development work which may take quite some time to complete. They want refund of the amount paid by them alongwith appropriate compensation etc. Considering that the allotment to them was made way back on 02.04.2014, they cannot be compelled to wait any more for the possession of the allotted plots when the development is not complete even after more than 5 years from the date of allotment. Therefore, they are entitled to refund of the amount paid by them to the trust alongwith appropriate compensation.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that Faridkot Improvement Trust shall refund the amount paid by Naresh Kumar and Gurjinder Singh to them alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund. They shall also be entitled to Rs.25,000/- each as the cost of litigation.
8. As far as Pritpal Singh is concerned, he wants to wait till the development work is complete and wants to take possession as soon as the development work is complete but insists upon payment of adequate compensation. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, a period of three years from the date of allotment would have been more than sufficient to complete the entire development works. Therefore, for the delay beyond three years from the date of allotment, the Trust must pay appropriate compensation to Sh. Pritpal Singh.
9. RP No.3808 of 2017 preferred against Pritpal Singh and RP No.1800 of 2017 therefore preferred by Pritpal Singh are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The Trust shall complete the development work in all respects within one year from today and shall deliver possession of the allotted plot to the complainant Pritpal Singh within three months thereafter.
(ii) The Trust shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum to Sh. Pritpal Singh on the amount which he had paid to the trust by 02.04.2017 w.e.f. 03.04.2017, till the date on which the possession in terms of this order is offered to him after completing the remaining development work.
(iii) The compensation in terms of this order, shall be paid to Sh. Pritpal Singh at the time of offer of possession.
All the Revision Petitions stand disposed of.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER