State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neelam vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust on 19 January, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017
Date of institution : 04.08.2017
Date of decision : 19.01.2018
Smt. Neelam w/o Shri Gurcharan Kumar, R/o 41-A, Rani Ka Bagh,
Govt. College Road, Amritsar.
.......Complainant
Versus
1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive
Officer.
2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar.
......Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri Arjun Sheoran, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
The complainant, Neelam, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹35,79,450/-, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 23.12.2011 i.e. the date of the allotment letter;Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 2
ii) to pay ₹16,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and
iii) to pay ₹55,000/- towards litigation cost.
Facts of the complaint:
2. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the opposite parties were supposed to develop a Residential Housing Project under the name and style of "Surya Enclave Extension" situated in Jalandhar and published various advertisements as well as visual advertisement so as to attract the public at large to purchase plots etc. in the said project. The complainant applied for the above said independent plot, vide Application Form No.077154 dated Nil and paid ₹3,40,000/- as earnest money. The name of the complainant was selected in the lucky draw held on 4.11.2011 and she was allotted plot No.165-D, measuring 200 square yards in the said project for total sale consideration of ₹34,00,000/- i.e. @ ₹17,000/-
per square yard, vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011. Furthermore, cess charges of ₹1,36,000/- were also to be imposed and, therefore, ₹31,96,950/- was to be paid after payment of earnest money. Thereafter the complainant made total payments of ₹35,79,450/-, the details of which are as under:-
Sr. No. Receipt No. Dated Amount in ₹
50633 48796 20.01.2012 6,46,950/-
52373 50511 22.06.2012 6,37,500/-
53942 52069 24.12.2012 6,12,000/-
55489 53597 24.06.2013 5,86,500/-
Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 3
57092 55172 23.12.2013 5,61,000/-
58740 56805 20.06.2014 5,35,500/-
Total:- 35,79,450/-
It is further averred that as per the allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 possession of the above plot was to be given and all development facilities were to be provided within 2.1/2 years by the opposite parties. The complainant wrote letters dated 7.1.2013, 28.3.2015, 4/5.6.2015, 17.2.2016, 24.2.2016, 22.3.2016, 7.6.2016, 2.9.2016 and 29.12.2016 to the opposite parties requesting for issuance of site plan along with copy of agreement as also the possession of the above said plot. However, possession of the plot had still not been granted till the date of filing of the complaint and hardly any development work had been done at the site. The complainant came to know after visiting the project site on various occasions that the amenities/facilities, as promised, were not there and independent plot was not even ready for possession. After the lapse of more than 6 years from the date of execution of the allotment letter dated 23.12.2011, the possession of the said plot has still not been handed over. The said project of the opposite parties is now totally abandoned and the work is completely standstill. The opposite party has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter of delivering possession of the said independent plot complete in all aspects to the complainant in spite of payment of the whole price of the said plot. The complainant is bearing heavy interest on the loan Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 4 taken by her from different persons for making payment of the above said plot. As such, the complainant suffered harassment, mental agony, mental stress and immense loss of time and money due to the aforesaid fraudulent conduct on the part of the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for issuance of the above mentioned directions to them. Defence of the opposite parties:
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply in which they admitted that the complainant had applied for 200 square yard plot and she was allotted Plot No.165-D of the same size in Surya Enclave Extension (94.97 Acre), vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 and that 10% of the earnest money was deposited by her. They also admitted that the complainant has already paid ₹35,79,450/-, against the total price of the plot and that the possession thereof was not delivered to her. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the complainant has never raised the claim of refund before the Trust and has always been seeking possession. Thus, it is for the first time that the complainant is seeking refund of the amount deposited by her. As such, the complainant cannot file the present complaint being premature as she had always sought possession of the plot in dispute and the same was handed over to her. The complainant without availing the remedy available to her of arbitration as per clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter rushed Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 5 to this Commission and this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint. Even as per clause 5 of the allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 the complainant was required to take possession after getting the agreement to sell executed with the office of the Trust. Thus, the letter to take possession was sent to the complainant by the Trust; however, she never bothered to get the possession of the same. It is averred that though some of the land of the Scheme area was earlier under the stay order which has since been vacated by the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 22.12.2015 and SLP has also been dismissed. However, in the case of the plot of the complainant, there was no stay and thus, the Trust had always been ready and willing to deliver the possession of the plot but it is in fact the complainant who is not coming forward to accept the offer. Even a public notice was published in the newspaper to all the allottees that they can take possession from the Trust but it is the complainant who is more interested in earning profits on the amount deposited by her and is thus, seeking refund of the amount already deposited by her. Even an individual letter dated 17.2.2016 was also sent to the complainant wherein she was told to get the demarcation of the plot in dispute. Even thereafter the complainant sent a letter to the Trust dated 17.2.2016 to the effect that she is interested in making payment of all instalments and is ready to take the possession and as such, the Trust sent another letter to the complainant to get the demarcation of the plot in dispute.
In view of the fact that the opposite party is willing to deliver the Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 6 possession of the plot to the complainant, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the possession of the plot to her. The claim of the complainant for refund of the price of the plot paid by her along with interest deserves to be rejected on the ground that under the Rules of allotment, i.e. The Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land & Allotments of Plots) Rules, 1983, the refund of the earnest money paid by an applicant can only be made if the applicant has been unsuccessful in draw of lots. Thus, the claim of refund is now not maintainable as the complainant herself has to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter but has not complied with the same. Even as per clause 5 of the allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 the complainant was required to get the Agreement to Sell executed with the office of the opposite parties by getting a stamp paper worth ₹500/- in the name of the Chairman of the Trust along with two witnesses after getting computerized photograph clicked within 30 days of receiving the copy of allotment letter, but she did not comply with the said condition and never came to the office of the Trust for the said purpose. It is further averred that the real fact is that the land prices all over the country including the State of Punjab and Jalandhar Town have drastically gone much low as compared to the prices in the year 2011-12. The complainant, who had purchased the plot with an object to earn profit is not finding any customer even at the purchase price, as the land prices have gone much down as compared to the land prices existing at the time of allotment. Had Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 7 the land prices gone up during this period the complainant would have happily taken active steps for taking possession of the plot from the opposite parties but in view of fall in prices she is not coming forward to take possession of the plot from the Trust. The opposite parties have already carried out development work in the entire scheme area by providing all the basic amenities in the whole of the scheme area and had spent a lot of finances for the development work. The opposite parties have made the payment of ₹1,60,826/- to Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. for laying of electricity poles and cables in the said scheme. The development work of electricity and street lights have already been completed in the scheme area. Even the work of 180 feet pucca road has been finalized and development is going at a very fast pace. Earlier also in 2014 the funds had been made available to Water Supply and Sewerage Board for getting the work of sewerage and water supply executed in whole of the area. Even the opposite parties have now been making efforts to develop the area and have sought report from the Engineering Department in the area and a check is being made to see whether proper developments are being made. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have exhibited gross negligence in the performance of their part and there is any deficiency in service. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Evidence of the Parties:
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record her affidavit Ex.C-A and documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Ex.C-2A to Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 8 Ex.C2E, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence the affidavit of their Executive Officer, Rajesh Chaudhary as Ex.OP-A and the documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8.
5. We have carefully gone through the averments of both the sides, the evidence produced by them in support of their respective averments and have also heard learned counsel on their behalf.
Contentions of the Parties:
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice by preparing the Scheme and inviting applications for the allotment of plots in that Scheme knowing fully well that they were not in a position to demarcate and allot the plots on account of the dispute already going on between them and the land owners regarding the possession of the land forming part of that Scheme and regarding which the stay/status-quo had already been granted by the Hon'ble High Court. As per the allotment letter, the agreement of sale was to be executed between the parties and the possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainant within 30 days of the execution of that agreement. The agreement was executed between the parties but the possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant nor the opposite parties were in a position to deliver the same. After the allotment of the plot, the complainant became the 'consumer' of the opposite parties and the non-delivery of the possession of the plot amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On account of that deficiency in service the complainant Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 9 suffered loss and injury; as a result of the inflation of the money and the rise in the prices of the construction material. In all these circumstances the complainant is not only entitled to the refund of the price of the plot paid by her, along with penal interest as claimed in the complaint, but is also entitled to compensation and the litigation costs, as prayed therein.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant failed to comply with the conditions, as mentioned in the allotment letter, Ex.C-1 and on account thereof, the possession of the plot was not delivered to her. She never got Agreement executed within the period of 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter and never came forward to take possession of the plot in dispute. Though some of the land of the Scheme area was earlier under the stay order which has since been vacated by the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 22.12.2015 and SLP has also been dismissed. However, in the case of the plot of the complainant there was no stay and thus the Trust had always been ready and willing to deliver the possession of the plot but it is in fact the complainant, who is not coming forward to accept the offer. Even a Public Notice dated 20.1.2016 published in the Newspaper to this effect has been issued by the Trust to all the allottees to take possession from the Trust. The opposite parties have already carried out development work in the entire scheme area by providing all the basic amenities and have spent a lot of finances for the development works. The opposite parties paid an Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 10 amount of ₹1,60,826/- to PSPCL for laying of electricity poles and cables in the said scheme. On the dismissal of the writ petitions the possession of the remaining land has also been obtained by the Trust and the development works in the entire area have been started by the Trust which is in full swing. In all these circumstances, the complainant cannot ask for the refund of her money nor she is entitled to any such compensation.
Consideration of Contentions:
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.
9. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that identical matters have already been decided by this Commission in the following cases:
i) Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
ii) Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2014 (Mrs. Pooja Garg v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
iii) Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2014 (Ravinder Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
iv) Consumer Complaint No.2 of 2015 (Sukhdev Singh Sehgal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 7.3.2017; Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 11
v) Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2015 (Col. RS Gotra (Retd.) v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
vi) Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2015 (Harbhajan Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
vii) Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2015 (Darshan Lal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
viii) Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2015 (Mintu Sood v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
ix) Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2015 (Rajesh Verma v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
x) Consumer Complaint No.154 of 2015 (Sanjiv Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xi) Consumer Complaint No.177 of 2015 (Bhim Singh vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 7.3.2017;
xii) Consumer Complaint No.185 of 2015 (Bharat Bhushan Bhutani vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 12
xiii) Consumer Complaint No.186 of 2015 (Rajinder Kumar Godara v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xiv) Consumer Complaint No.187 of 2015 (Surender Lal Yadav vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xv) Consumer Complaint No.190 of 2015 (Jatinder Pal Singh v.
v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xvi) Consumer Complaint No.205 of 2015 (Harbans Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xvii) Consumer Complaint No.206 of 2015 (Tarsem Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xviii) Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015 (Raj Kumar Setia v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xix) Consumer Complaint No.222 of 2015 (Harmanjit Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xx) Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2015 (Navneet Goyal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 13xxi) Consumer Complaint No.241 of 2015 (Alka Jindal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxii) Consumer Complaint No.242 of 2015 (Harpal Singh Arora v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxiii) Consumer Complaint No.243 of 2015 (Parampal Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxiv) Consumer Complaint No.255 of 2015 (Jatinder Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxv) Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2015 (Kusam Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxvi) Consumer Complaint No.334 of 2015 (Anil Kumar Chowdhary v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017.
xxvii) Consumer Complaint No.533 of 2017 (Satish Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; xxviii) Consumer Complaint No.614 of 2017 (Amit Singh Sindhu v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; xxix) Consumer Complaint No.615 of 2017 (Gayatri Devi v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 14 xxx) Consumer Complaint No.616 of 2017 (Sanjay Singhal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; and xxxi) Consumer Complaint No.617 of 2017 (Joginder Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017.
10. The matter in the present complaint is squarely covered by the orders passed in above said cases, so we intend to decide the present complaint in view of orders passed in above said cases.
11. Admittedly, the plot, in dispute, was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011, Ex.C-1. It is also an admitted fact that towards the total price of the plot, so mentioned in the allotment letter, she has already deposited ₹35,79,450/-. It is also admitted that the possession of the plot has not been delivered to the complainant nor the opposite parties are in a position to deliver the same. As per condition No.5 of allotment letter, the complainant was to attend the office of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust within 30 days and was to take with her two witnesses and stamp paper of ₹500/- for getting the Agreement executed. It is not the case of the complainant that she complied with that condition. However, from the evidence produced on the record by her, it stands proved that the complainant has paid the full price of the plot in question. If the complainant had not herself appeared in the office to get the Agreement executed, the opposite parties could have invoked condition No.6, vide which they were authorized to cancel the allotment and to forfeit the amount already deposited by the complainant. They never invoked that clause and continued to Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 15 receive the instalments from the complainant. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite parties to say that the complainant never became entitled to the possession of the plot on account of the non-execution of the Agreement.
12. It is very much clear from the terms and conditions of the allotment letter that all the development facilities were to be provided within two and a half years from the date of allotment letter by the opposite parties. The complainant has sworn in her affidavit that no development has taken place at the spot and rather there is status- quo order regarding the land, which was issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition filed by the land owners. That fact has not been fully denied by the opposite parties. It has been alleged by the opposite parties that though there was status-quo order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in respect of some of the land of the scheme area but in respect of the plot of the complainant there was no stay and the opposite parties were and are ready and willing to deliver the possession of the plot to her. However, the fact remains that there was status-quo with regard to the land of the scheme area and as a consequence thereof overall development of the project area, including various amenities, could not be carried out in the time bound manner as stipulated in the allotment letter. In similar case i.e. in C.C. No.129 of 2015 decided by this Commission (Hardev Singh v. Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and Ors.), the complainant produced on record the letter dated 21.10.2005 (Memo No.6/44/05-4LG2/16729-90) written by the Local Government Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 16 Department, Punjab to all the Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab, as per which before commencement of the process of allotment of the plot in the Scheme, the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Improvement Trusts were to certify on record that physical possession of the site(s) of proposed allotment/auction free from all encumbrances/obstructions was readily available for onward transmission to the prospective allottees and that there was no physical obstruction to start the construction activities. In fact, this was the position taken up by the State of Punjab in the letter dated 23.2.1983 (Memo No.66-I-3GII-83/7070-7090) which was reiterated. In that letter it was mentioned that as far as possible the Improvement Trusts shall allot/auction the sites only when they were sure that they were in a position to deliver the possession of the site to the purchaser. It is a fact that the possession of the whole of the land which forms part of the Scheme was not with the opposite parties when they commenced the process of allotment of plots to the complainant and the other applicants. The original land owners were in possession thereof, who had obtained the status-quo order from the Hon'ble High Court. In these circumstances the opposite parties should not have proceeded with the Scheme and by indulging in the activity of allotting the plots in the Scheme, when possession of whole of the land was not with them, amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.
13. It was the possession of the developed plot, which was to be given to the complainant. The next question to be determined is, Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 17 whether the opposite parties have made the required development at the site? It has been specifically deposed by the complainant in her affidavit Ex.C-A that no such development has been done by the opposite parties. To rebut that deposition of the complainant, the opposite parties proved on record the affidavit of Rajesh Chaudhary, Executive Officer, Ex.OP/A in which he deposed that though some of the land of the scheme area was earlier under the stay order which has since been vacated by the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 22.12.2015 and SLP has already been dismissed. However, in the case of the plot of the complainant, there was no stay and thus the Trust had always been ready and willing to deliver the possession of the plot but it is in fact the complainant who is not coming forward to accept the offer. He further deposed that the opposite parties have already carried out development work in the entire scheme by providing all the basic amenities in the whole of the scheme area and have spent a lot of finances for the development works. The funds have been made available to Water Supply and Sewerage Board for laying the water supply and sewerage lines and that the funds have also been given to PSPCL for laying down electricity poles and cables in the said scheme. The Trust has already started getting the work executed in this area. The opposite parties proved on record documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 for corroborating that deposition of the Executive Officer. Ex.OP-3 is the letter dated 21.11.2012 written by the opposite parties to Punjab State Power Corporation Limited in respect of payment of ₹1,60,826/- for laying Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 18 down the electric wires and the poles. Ex.OP-4 is the letter dated 27.10.2014 written by the Trust to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board for making payment of ₹9.80 lakh for laying down water supply pipelines and sewerage lines. Ex.OP-5 is the list of complete works, ongoing works and works for which tenders were being floated. Ex.OP-6 is the Detail of Estimated Cost and Development Works done at the site. Ex.OP-7 is the detail of Estimated Cost and Development Works done at site upto 23.5.2016. Ex.OP-8 is also the Estimated Cost and Development Works to be done in the said project, which is dated 24.10.2017. Moreover, it cannot be concluded from this evidence that the development was completed by the opposite parties, as required by the letter of allotment. It appears that all this exercise for making development was started by the opposite parties in the year 2015, 2016 and 2017 i.e. much after the stipulated date mentioned in the allotment letter. The estimated costs of the works are mentioned in those documents and the work done is not as per those estimated costs and is much less than those estimated costs. The omission on the part of the opposite parties in developing the Scheme as per their undertaking given in the allotment letter also amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for allotment of the plot. From the above discussion, it is very much clear that only partial development has been made at the spot and the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver possession of fully Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 19 developed plot to the complainant and that they adopted unfair trade practice.
14. Similar question had arisen before this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.81 of 2013 (Munish Dev Sharma v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and another) and Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2013 (Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another) both decided on 30.07.2014. Those complaints were filed in respect of the plots in the same Scheme and the facts were similar. The complaints were allowed and against those orders, the opposite parties preferred the appeals F.A. No.1215 of 2014 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Munish Dev Sharma) and F.A. No.1216 of 2014 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Sanjay Gupta) respectively before the Hon'ble National Commission, which were decided on 01.07.2015. The Hon'ble National Commission held as under:-
"26. Thus, it is manifestly clear from the above order that as on 8.3.2011, there was "Status quo regarding possession". However, the appellants despite having full knowledge of the above order of the High Court, issued allotment letters on 26.12.2011 and 23.12.2011, in respect of plots in question. Therefore, above facts clearly goes on to show, that at the time of issuance of the allotment letters in respect of plots in question, it was well within the knowledge of the Appellant-Trust, that there was an impediment in allotment of the plots in question. In spite thereof, Appellant-Trust had gone ahead and allotted plots in question to the respondents, which it could not have done so. In this manner, appellants have played fraud with Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 20 the general public and thus collected huge amount of money.
27. The aforesaid act of the appellants, clearly falls within the meaning of "Unfair Trade Practice" as defined under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act, relevant portion of which states; "(r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
28. Appellants having full knowledge that the scheme in question could not see the light of the day, still promoted the scheme to befool the public. Thus, appellants have adopted "unfair method" as well as "deceptive practice" in promoting the sale of the plots in question. This act of appellants, is squarely covered within the meaning of "Unfair Trade Practice".
29. Furthermore, appellants after having taken substantial amount from the respondents in the year 2011, are still enjoying their hard earned money for last many years. Now, when appellants are not in a position to allot the plots in a habitable condition to the respondents, then why they are still withholding respondents' money. There is no reasonable and plausible explanation, in this regard from the side of the appellants. We deplore such "unfair trade practices" being adopted by the Appellant-Trust, which is a Public Body.
30. It would also be pertinent to observe, that appellants have not given any firm date of handing over the Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 21 possession of plots in question, to the respondents which also is a "Deceptive Practice". The appellants should have given firm date of handing over of possession, at the time of taking booking amount. By not indicating the true picture with regard to their scheme to the respondents, appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to "unfair trade practice".
31. Thus, appellants by not delivering the physical possession of fully developed plots to the respondents, till date even after having received more than 90% of the price thereof, are not only deficient in rendering service but are also guilty of indulging into "unfair trade practice".
32. Appellants in the present case, "wants to have the cake and eat it too", as admittedly they have received about 90% of the sale price of the plots. The appellants are thus enjoying possession of the plots as well as substantial amount of consideration paid by the respondents. On the other hand, respondents after having paid substantial amount of the sale consideration, are still empty handed.
34. Such type of unscrupulous act on the part of Appellant- Trust should be dealt with heavy hands, who after grabbing the money from the purchasers, enjoy and utilize their money but do not hand over the plots on one pretext or the other. Appellants want the respondents to run from one fora to other, so that appellants can go on enjoying the respondents' money without any hindrance.
35. It is well settled, that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless appeal in consumer foras. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 22 opposite party of the fruits of the decree, must be dealt with heavy hands. Unscrupulous developer like Appellant-Trust, who after taking almost entire cost of the plots, do not perform their part of obligation, should not be spared. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of Public Bodies, that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters."
When such is the position, we conclude that the complainant on account of the adoption of unfair trade practice by the opposite parties is entitled to the refund of the amount paid by her towards the price of the plot, along with interest and for the harassment having been suffered by her at the hands of the opposite parties is also entitled to compensation.
15. Accordingly this complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹35,79,450/- to the complainant, 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 ₹1,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall
be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2017 23
16. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 19, 2018 Bansal