State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balkar Singh vs Punjab Urban Development Authority ... on 26 March, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.721 of 2017
Date of institution : 17.10.2017
Date of decision : 26.03.2018
Balkar Singh S/o Chhota Singh, Resident of Village Khudal Kalan,
Tehsil Budladha, District Mansa.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA Complex,
Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Competent Person, Bathinda,
Tehsil and District Bathinda.
....Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order dated
07.07.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by him, under First Appeal No.721 of 2017 2 Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed, on the ground that it was pre-mature.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that on 27.9.2012 the opposite party launched a scheme, for allotment of freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada. Applications were demanded with 10% earnest money of the total amount. The complainant applied for allotment of 500 sq.yard plot, vide application No.2516, along with ₹3,00,000/- earnest money. The draw of lots was conducted on 15.01.2013 at Budhlada, in which the complainant was successful and the opposite party issued Letter of Intent (in short, 'LoI') dated 16.04.2013 to him. Thereafter, the complainant paid next 15% of total amount by way of demand draft of ₹4,50,000/-. As per the terms of the scheme, the possession of the plot was to be handed over after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. However, no development was made by the opposite party at the site. The complainant and other plot holders requested it to complete the development and to handover possession of the plot, in question, but to no effect. Terming the act and conduct of the opposite First Appeal No.721 of 2017 3 parties to be deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking following directions to it:
i) to return the deposited amount of ₹7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest; and
(ii) to pay ₹1,00,000/- as compensation, on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
Defence of the Opposite Party
4. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before the District Forum and filed reply to the complaint, admitting the purchase of the plot by the complainant from it. It was pleaded that the complainant has suppressed the real facts from the Forum and no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint. As per Clause No.12 of LoI, the possession of plot was to be handed over to the allottee after completion of development work at site or 18 months from the date of allotment letter whichever was earlier. The LoI is not allotment letter. There is no mention in LoI, as to on which date the possession was to be delivered. It was further pleaded that the development works at the spot were in progress. The draw of plot numbers was drawn on 03.06.2016 and the allotment letter was to be sent to the allottee at the earliest. It was further pleaded that the complainant wrongly interpreted Condition No.12. In fact, the draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 and at that time the rates of the property at site were very high and everyone wanted to make profit by investing in property. However, the rate of property came down after the year First Appeal No.721 of 2017 4 2013. On the other hand, the complainant was thinking that the rate of this site would increase tremendously, as a result of which he would earn good profit. Thus, the complainant, finding no profit in future, wanted to save himself from the monetary loss. As per Condition No.22 of the LoI, if the allottee/complainant does not want to comply with its conditions or was not satisfied, he could write letter to the opposite party in that regard within 30 days from the date of issuance of LoI and could get back his earnest money, but the complainant did not do so and he further deposited 15% towards the price of the plot. Further, Condition No.15 of the LoI provided that the LoI was to be transferable after receipt of 25% of total price of the plot, by way of sale, gift or otherwise with the prior permission of the Estate Office, PUDA, Bathinda, subject to the payment of 2.5% of the total price of the plot as transfer fee and ₹2,500/- as process fee. Accordingly, many allottees have sold their plots, after getting permission for transfer of the plots. Being no purchaser in the market at that point of time, the complainant wants to get loss satisfied from PUDA. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed, with special costs.
Finding of the District Forum
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal. First Appeal No.721 of 2017 5 Contentions of the Parties
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the complaint has been wrongly dismissed by the District Forum, being pre-mature. In fact, the scheme was launched by the opposite party on 27.09.2012. The allotment letter was issued much later on 06.09.2016, whereas the draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 and LoI was issued on 16.04.2013. Since the allotment letter was issued after three years from the issuance of LoI, so it cannot held that the complaint was pre-mature. The opposite party was also unable to start the development work for more than three years. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently contended that the District Forum has passed the impugned order, after minutely examining the entire evidence and record placed on the file. The LoI was not the allotment letter and the possession was not to be delivered as per LoI. It was further contended that the draw of plot numbers has been held on 03.06.2016 and allotment letter, Ex.OP-2, has already been issued to the complainant. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms of LoI, then he could have exercised his option within 30 days of the issue thereof, but he did not do so. From the date of First Appeal No.721 of 2017 6 issuance of the allotment letter i.e. 06.09.2016, the complaint is clearly pre-mature and, therefore, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Perusal of Condition No.12 of Letter of Intent (LoI), Ex.C-2, clearly states that the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. Similar Clause was mentioned in the Brochure, Ex.C-7. The Allotment Letter, Ex.OP-2, was issued to the complainant on 06.09.2016 and, as such, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 18 months therefrom i.e. till 05.03.2018. However, the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 14.06.2016, which was certainly pre-mature at that point of time. When the complaint itself was pre-mature, then the other merits of the case need not be gone into. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, keeping in mind the pre-mature nature of the complaint, we would like to observe that in case there is non-compliance of the terms of the allotment letter and LoI on the part of the opposite party, then the complainant will be at liberty to avail his remedy, in accordance with law.
First Appeal No.721 of 2017 7
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER March 26, 2018.
(Gurmeet S)