State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shaimder Singh vs H.P.Construction Company on 17 July, 2015
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 659 of 2012
Date of institution: 24.05.2012
Date of decision : 17.07.2015
Shaimder Singh s/o Sh. Sadhu Singh S/o Sh. Hajura R/o H. No. 41 Baba Ganga
Ram Enclave, Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
H.P. Construction Company (Registered) New Sunni Gali Mansa through its
owner/partner/promoters:-
1. Manish Kumar son of Hira Lal r/o near Suni Gali Mansa.
2. Prem Nath Garg S/o Shivji Ram r/o near Suni Gali Mansa.
3. Mukesh Kumar S/o Dev Raj R/o ward No. 14 near Gita Bhawan Sadar
Bazar Rampur Phool Tehsil Phool District Bathinda.
4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sohan Lal deceased
a) Alka Wife
b) Varun son
c) Anu son
All r/o Ward No. 14 near Gita Bhawan Sadar Bazar Rampur Phool Tehsil Phool
District Bathinda.
5. Savita Rani w/o Sh. Surender Kumar R/o Ward No. 17. Gali No. 1 Laxman
Colony Gidderbaha District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
6. Vandana Garg w/o Jit Kumar S/o Ward No. 12 Gali No. 1 Thakur Mohalla
Gidderbaha District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal against the order dated 16.04.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. S.R. Kapoor, Advocate for
Sh. Yogesh Jain, Advocate
For respondents No. 1&5 : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
For respondents No. 2,3,4&6 Ex-parte
First Appeal No.659 of 2012 2
GURCHARAN SINGH SRAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Order
This appeal has been preferred by appellant/complainant
(Hereinafter refereed as 'complainant') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 16.04.2012 in C.C. No. 63 of 03.03.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') on the grounds that in the year 2006 OPs had given an advertisement that they were going to develop a posh colony under the name Baba Ganga Ram Enclave adjoining to G.T. Road, which leads to Bathinda and Chandigarh and that they will provide basic amenities like Sewerage system alongwith its treatment plant and disposal, providing 24 hours water supply from water works and water purifier, Parks, modern lighting systems, parking, schools, hospital, community centre etc. Believing the version of the OPs to be true, the complainant purchased plot NO. 41 (30x60 feet) and spent a huge amount of Rs. 40 lacs for the construction of the said house. However, the OPs had not fulfilled their promise with regard to basic amenities referred above. They had used low standard material in constructing the roads which were in dilapidated condition. The park was not maintained as no gardener/caretaker was provided. The Enclave was not connected with the NH-15 (G.T. Road). In the original scheme they were to develop 86 plots but they had developed 157 plots illegally. The complainant made repeated requests to the OPs for providing basic amenities/facilities but to no results. The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint, seeking directions to the OPs to provide all the facilities as promised by them alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. First Appeal No.659 of 2012 3
3. The complaint was contested by OP No. 1 (5 & 6) whereas OP No. 1 (OPs No. 1 to 4) were ex-parte. OP No. 1 (5 & 6) in their written reply took the preliminary objections that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OPs, the Forum had no jurisdiction to try this complaint as complicated questions of law and facts were involved and the matter was required to be relegated to Civil Court and that the complainant was not the 'consumer'. On merits, it was submitted that the complaint was not filed within time. The complainant had purchased the plot vide sale deed dated 30.10.2006 from the OPs and at that time they did not agree to provide the facilities as mentioned in the complaint. Mr. Varinder Kumar Singla was the promoter and who had the licence/approval No. 270 dated 24.02.2006 under Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act 1955 (in short 'PAPRA'). He has provided 80 to 90% amenities such as laying Sewerage Pipes, Water Supply Pipes, Electricity, Parks, roads, parking etc and had submitted the project report regarding the completion of the work in the colony and estimate cost was Rs. 7,14,6000/-. As per PAPRA, the PUDA had got deposited 25% of the estimated costs of development works in the shape of bank guarantee which was later renewed. They had already deposited external development charges (EDC) as per the schedule of PUDA and then it was the duty of PUDA to get work done outside the Enclave such as roads, sewerage and water pipes etc. It was denied that the complainant spent a sum of Rs. 42 lacs for the construction of his house. In case, development work was not done by the OPs, then it is the duty of PUDA also to check and in case it is not completed, then his bank guarantee can be forfeited. Therefore, the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
4. Parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. The complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of sale deed dated 22.08.2007, Ex C-2, copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2008 Ex. C- 3, copy of sale deed dated 15.05.2007 Ex. C-4, copy of sale deed dated 15.05.2007 Ex.C-5, copy of sale deed dated 19.06.2009 Ex.C-6, copy of letter dated First Appeal No.659 of 2012 4 24.02.2006 Ex.C-7 containing 4 pages, copy of jamabandi for the year 2006-07 Ex.C-8, copy of jamabandi for Khewat No. 127 Ex.C-9, copy of jamabandi for khewat No. 517 Ex.C-10, copy of Khewat No. 519 Ex.C-11, copy of certificate issued by Municipal Council, Gidderbaha dated 15.09.2010 Ex.C-12, copy of letter dated 20.05.2009 Ex.C-13, copy of Advertisement issued by OP Ex.C-14, copy of bill dated 23.04.2008 Ex.C-15, photographs are Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-29 (photographs are objected to on the mode of proof), copy of site plant of house of complainant Ex.C-30, copy of original site plan Ex.C-31, copy of site plan later on added plots Ex.C-32 and closed the evidence. On the other hand OPs tendered into evidence copies of sale deed Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-55, copy of letter issued by BDA Bathinda regarding renewal of certificate Ex.R-56, original letter dated 11.10.2012 issued by BDA Bathinda Ex.R-57, copy of site map plan Ex.R-58, copy of Notification issued by Housing and Urban Development Ex.R-59, attested copy of final letter of approval dated 24.02.2006 Ex.R-60 (ten leaves, snaps Mark OP-A to Mark OP-D), affidavit of Smt. Vandana Garg, Partner of M/s H.P. Construction Ex.R-61, copy of Partnership Deed Ex.R-62 and closed the evidence.
5. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written reply filed by OPs, evidence and documents on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as referred above.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the appeal.
7. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. It has been submitted by the appellant that the District Forum has wrongly observed that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs and amenities were to be provided by PUDA/BDA. Since the colony was developed by OPs, therefore, they were responsible to provide facilities as promised by them. Accordingly, the order so passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside. Even the Local Commissioner has pointed that number of facilities were not provided. First Appeal No.659 of 2012 5
8. The complainant in its evidence apart from his affidavit has placed on record Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 the sale deeds, Ex.R-7 the approval given to the OPs to develop the colony, Ex.C-8 copy of Jamabandi, Ex.C-12 the completion certificate given by Municipal Council, Ex.C-14 copy of advertisement issued by the OPs, Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-29 are the photographs. Therefore no agreement or the broacher under which the facilities have been referred by the complainant in his complaint has been placed on record. However, when the permission was granted to the OPs vide letter Ex.C-7, number of terms were fixed by the PUDA to the OPs to develop the colony. Now we have to see whether those terms were completed by the OPs after developing the colony. In case we go through the complaint, the main grouse of the complainant that the basic amenities like sewerage, water supply, parking etc have not been given whereas the case of the OPs is that he has developed internal sewerage, frame board, electricity network which is clear from the photographs placed on the record Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-29 and some other photographs are also placed on the record by the OPs show construction of the water tank, road network as per the terms. When permission was granted by PUDA to the OPs, EDC was charged from the OPs and in the pleadings the OPs have stated that the EDC whichever demanded by PUDA was deposited by him. This amount was for external development. In case any colony has been developed by the builder, he is required to provide all these facilities within the colonies and the purpose of EDC is that PUDA has to develop the external system and then it is to be connected with the internal system of the colony. Therefore, linking of the sewerage system with the main sewerage system was the duty of PUDA. External road network was also to be provided by PUDA. So far the electricity is concerned, its connection is there. For water supply the tank has been provided, outside water supply is to be supplied by PUDA. So far as RO system or 24 hours water supply, the complainant has not been able to prove on record the broacher or any other agreement between the parties under which these facilities were to be provided. So far as low quality of material used in constructing the road, there is First Appeal No.659 of 2012 6 no expert report, otherwise with the passage of time some damages to the road network will be there. After the project is completed then the maintenance charges are to be required to be paid to the OPs otherwise they are required to upkeep their system at their own cost. Another plea has been taken that 86 plots were originally sanctioned but 127 plots were demarked. Again there is no evidence of the complainant. Otherwise, in case it is so, he reserves his right to file the complaint with PUDA to take action in case the OPs developed any plot beyond the sanction. Certainly, PUDA or BDA is not the party to it, otherwise they could be asked to furnish any explanation why the external work has not been completed so far. Otherwise, the licence of the OP was renewed from time to time and last renewal was upto 16.05.2015 Ex.R-56. Then there is certificate issued by Administrator Officer BDO, Bathinda, according to which 85% work has been completed. In case, some external development work is still pending which is beyond the scope of the OPs as these are to be provided by Administration Authorities with whom the EDC was deposited. The OPs cannot be blamed for that.
9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum is correct and we do not see any illegality in the order. The same is affirmed. There is no merit in the appeal and the same hereby dismissed.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER July 17, 2015.
Rupinder First Appeal No.659 of 2012 7