National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. vs Surinder Kumar Modi on 17 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 23/02/2016 in Appeal No. 1546/2014 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANR. JALANDHAR, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, AT JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST BUILDING, MODAL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR PUNJAB 2. EXCUTIVE OFFICER, JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JALANDHAR HAVING OFFICE AT JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST BUILDING MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SURINDER KUMAR MODI S/O. LADLI PARASAD MODI, R/O. H.NO. 378-C, NEW ADARSH NAGAR, NAKODAR JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate
Dated : 17 May 2017 ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed in First Appeal No. 1546 of 2014 by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (herein after referred as 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the opposite parties and upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred as 'the District Forum').
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant, Shri Surinder Kumar Modi applied for one HIG flat in the Scheme 17 kanal 1 marla, namely Shri Hare Krishna Tower, Jalandhar through Lucky draw held on 15.09.2006. The complainant was declared successful in the draw of lots and was allotted HIG flat bearing No. 102, Ground floor vide letter JIT/6204 dated 9.11.2006. The complainant was requested to pay Rs.24,69,600/- which were paid as per the allotment agreement. As per the term 7 and 11 of the allotment letter, possession was to be delivered in June 2009.
3. It is alleged that the OP failed to handover the possession of the flat within 2½ years i.e. by June 2009. Also, OP did not pay the rental charges as agreed for the delayed possession. Hence, complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar. The District Forum vide order dated 14.10.2014 accepted the complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,40,000/- as compensation due to failure to deliver the possession of the flat to the complainant till date of filing of present complaint. Also, Rs.10,000/- p.m. as compensation for failure to deliver the possession and Rs.3,000/- as cost.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP filed first appeal before the State Commission, Punjab. The State Commission vide order dated 23.2.2016 dismissed the appeal. It was held that in case the possession of the flat would have been delivered to the complainant then he would have saved his rent paid by him to his landlord. Therefore, on account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs for not delivering the possession in time, he suffered financial loss which has been allowed by the District Forum.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed by the opposite parties.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners/OPs submitted that the time was not the essence of contract. The flat was ready but the complainant never came forward to take the possession. 2 ½ years' period mentioned in the allotment letter was the period related to payment of installments within which the complainant has to make the payment. Therefore, there is no cause of action in the instant case.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that as per the allotment letter dated 9.11.2006 (Ex. C-1), flat No. 102 was allotted to him and as per clause 11, the construction to be completed within 2 ½ years and the electricity and water connection will be provided after taking the possession. The complainant had already paid Rs.24,69,600/- but possession of flat was not given.
8. After our thoughtful consideration, as per the petitioners/OPs contention, the flat was ready for delivery of possession but the complainant never approached for taking the possession. It is pertinent to note that there is no communication or any lettervide which, the complainant was intimated by the OP about the possession. The OPs failed to produce it before the fora below. Therefore, it was the duty of the OPs to show why the complainant was not informed in writing that flat was ready and they are willing to deliver the possession. It is quite surprising that the OPs after receiving the entire money from the complainant, shirk away from their responsibility and take a frivolous ground that time was not the essence of the contract. As per the condition 11 of the allotment, the OPs were required to deliver the possession of flat within 2 ½ years. It cannot be disbelieved that the complainant had to incur rental expenses for the delayed period. Under such circumstances, he deserves to be compensated with the financial loss by way of rental expenditure.
9. On the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed.
..................................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER Naresh/Reserved ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER