State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gulab Singh Khatra vs Bathinda Development Authority (Bda) ... on 2 May, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.36 of 2021
Date of Institution : 17.08.2021
Date of Decision : 02.05.2022
Gulab Singh Khatra aged about 70 years son of Sh.Jaspal Singh
resident of #20828, Street No.23-B, Ajit Road, Bathinda.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Bathinda Development Authority (BDA), Bathinda, through its
Administrator / Additional Chief Administrator, Email ID:-
[email protected] & [email protected]
2. Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority (BDA), Bathinda,
Both situated/ Address of PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road,
Phase-1, Model Town, Bathinda (151001), Email ID:
[email protected] & [email protected]
......Opposite parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 47 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Argued By:-
For the complainant : Sh.G.S.Aulakh, Advocate with Sh.G.S.Khatra, in person For the opposite parties: Sh.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER:
The complainant, Gulab Singh Khatra, has approached this Commission by way of filing this Consumer Complaint No.36 of 2021 under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'the Act') against the opposite parties stating therein that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the opposite parties to participate in an open auction of the residential plot No.31, measuring 500 sq. yards in phase-II, Part-II, Urban Estate, Bathinda in pursuance Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 2 to an advertisement issued by the opposite parties. Auction was held on 22.12.2011. Being the highest bidder, he was allotted the said plot on 22.12.2011 at the rate of Rs.22,400/- per sq. yard, which came to Rs.1,12,00,000/-. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11,20,000/-
vide Book No.52, Receipt No.44 dated 22.12.2011. Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.16,80,000/- i.e. 10% of the price of the plot, vide Book No.52, receipt No.92 dated 20.01.2012. Thus, the complainant paid Rs.28,00,000/- being 25% of the price of the plot. Allotment letter dated 14.02.2012 was issued to the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the balance payment of Rs.84,00,000/-, could either be paid in lump sum without any interest within a period of 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six half yearly instalments along with interest @12% per annum as per the payment schedule. As per the terms and conditions, in case of non-payment of instalments by due dates, the allottee was to pay penalty on the due amount. The complainant has paid all the instalments as per the schedule, but the opposite parties have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter but has not handed over the possession of the plot, in question. Later on, the complainant was informed, vide letter Endst. No.3528 dated 25.06.2019 that there was a court case regarding issue of ownership of plot No.31 and therefore, the possession could not be handed over and it was proposed to give possession of some other plot. This fact is also mentioned in the order of refund bearing Ends No.4957-60 dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Executive Officer and endorsed by Addl. Chief Administrator, BDA, Bathinda, while accepting the appeal on Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 3 04.12.2020. The complainant approached the opposite parties on number of occasions by writing various letters with the request regarding issue location/ demarcation and possession of the plot but subsequently, the allotment was cancelled. Thereafter, the opposite parties ordered to refund the amount of Rs.1,15,39,924/- i.e. after deduction of 10% of the deposited amount i.e. Rs.1,29,84,827/-. The opposite parties have illegally forfeited the amount of Rs.12,98,483/-. Thereafter, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Chief Administrator-cum-Appellate Authority, which was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2020 and directed the opposite parties to refund the 10% deducted amount. Accordingly, the opposite parties refunded an amount of Rs.12,98,482/- vide cheque No.000015 dated 26.02.2021, however, the opposite parties have not paid any interest on the deposited amount of the complainant, as they have utilized said amount. The complainant is entitled to get interest @17% per annum as per market usage and customs from the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint seeking following reliefs.
i) to pay Rs.1,65,85,035/- as interest @17% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization;
ii) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and agony; and
iii) to pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties, who filed joint reply admitting that the plot bearing No.31 was allotted to the complainant Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 4 vide allotment letter No.480 dated 14.02.2012. However, there was a dispute regarding the ownership / demarcation of certain plots, including plot No.31 with Rajinder Singh and Others and the verdict was given by Commissioner, Faridkot Division in favour of Rajinder Singh and others, which was challenged by the opposite parties/BDA before the Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab. Therefore, the possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant. As per the offer given to the complainant, the complainant opted for Plot No.73, Phase-II, Part-II, Urban Estate, Bathinda. However, the proceedings for refund were pending, therefore, the same could not be allotted to the complainant. Vide representations dated 24.06.2020 and 19.08.2020, the complainant/allottee represented that the plot which was allotted to him has been a subject matter of litigation and he has not been able to get the possession since nine years. As per the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by Estate Officer, the amount deposited by the complainant/allottee was refunded to him after the statutory deductions of 10% of the total consideration. The order of refund was challenged by the complainant before the Addl. Chief Administrator- cum-Appellate Authority, which was accepted and it was ordered to refund the deducted amount. Accordingly, the deducted amount was refunded to the complainant. The claim of the complainant/allottee for seeking interest upon the deposited amount is not sustainable. The parties are governed by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Letter of Intent and Letter of Allotment and opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest upon the amount deposited by the complainant/allottee. Further submitted that there is no deficiency in Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 5 service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. Rest all the other averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder alongwith documents to the reply of the opposite parties denying the averments of the opposite parties. Further prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
4. Heard, the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the record of the case and written arguments submitted by the parties.
5. Sh.G.S.Aulakh, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.31 in Phase-II, Part-II, Urban Estate, Bathinda on the basis of auction held on 22.12.2011, vide allotment letter dated 14.02.2012. The said allotment letter being a sham transaction not a legal and valid document as the opposite parties were not owner in possession of the said plot No.31 at the time of auction. Later on, the opposite parties offered another plot to the complainant, which they also failed to handover to the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite parties in order to cover up their fault refunded the amount after deduction of 10% of the total consideration of the plot. The complainant then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted and ordered to refund the balance 10% amount deducted from the complainant. The opposite parties kept the whole amount with them approximately for 10 years and paid back without any interest, which is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, it is prayed to Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 6 allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the interest amount along with compensation and litigation expenses as prayed for.
6. On the other hand, Sh.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the plot, in question, was auctioned and being a successful bidder, the allotment of plot No.31 was given to the complainant. However, due to ongoing dispute having been decided in favour of Rajinder Singh and others by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, is under challenge before the Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab by filing an appeal by the opposite parties. The said plot No.31 could not be handed over. The complainant was also offered plot No.73 in Phase II, Part-II, Urban Estate, Bathinda, but the same could not be allotted to the complainant/allottee due to the pendency of the proceedings for refund. Thereafter, the complainant was given refund of his deposited amount after deduction of 10% of the amount as per the orders of the Estate Officer. The same was challenged by the complainant before the Addl. Chief Administrator-cum-Appellate Authority, which was decided in favour of the complainant, whereby the Appellate Authority ordered to refund the 10% deducted amount. The amount was given to the complainant and nothing remains due towards opposite parties. The complainant is seeking interest upon the amount deposited which is not sustainable as per the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent and Letter of Allotment. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. Admittedly, the complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.31, Measuring 500 sq.yards in Phase-2, Part-2, Urban Estate, Bathinda in auction on free hold basis, vide Allotment Letter 14.02.2012, Ex.C-3. Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 7 The total sale consideration of the plot was fixed as Rs.1,12,00,000/- @ Rs.22,400/- per sq. yards. The complainant initially deposited a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- on 22.12.2011 and thereafter, paid a sum of Rs.16,80,000/- to make it 25% of the total sale consideration. The complainant deposited the balance 75% of total sale consideration in instalments with interest and has also completed all the requisite formalities. The detail of the amount deposited by the complainant is as under:
Sr.No. Receipt Amount in Rupees Dated Exhibit
No.
1. 44 11,20,000/- 22.12.2011 C-1
2. 92 16,80,000/- 20.01.2012 C-2
3. 4761 24,08,000/- 24.12.2012 C-4
4. 6792 18,20,000/- 24.06.2013 C-5
5. 8308 59,36,000/- 31.12.2013 C-6
6. - 20,000/- Paid as Penalty
22.12.2011 to
24.09.2020
Total Amount Paid 1,29,84,000/-
8. As above, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,29,84,000/- to the opposite parties. Vide Ex.C-7, dt. 25.06.2011 the opposite parties informed the complainant that the allotted plot No.31 could not be delivered due to ownership dispute and it was decided to accept some other plot. Thereafter, the complainant was offered other plot bearing No.73, which was also not handed over. The opposite parties, vide their order dated 11.09.2020, Ex.C-8, ordered to refund the amount Rs.1,15,39,924/- after deduction of 10% of the sale consideration. The order of refund was challenged by the complainant before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted vide order dated 04.12.2020, Ex. C-9, whereby it was ordered to refund the 10% deducted amount. However, no interest on the deposited amount was paid to the complainant. The opposite parties have neither placed on Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 8 record any evidence in support of their contentions nor given any reasoning as to why the interest was not paid to the complainant.
9. From the perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that the complainant has complied with all the formalities and has also paid the amount as per schedule along with interest and penalty, which itself is clear from the order of the Appellate Authority, Ex.C-9, wherein it was mentioned that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,29,84,823/-. The complainant had regularly paid the instalments from 2011 to 2013. The amount, as mentioned in the complaint, is also supported with evidence and the opposite parties kept such a huge amount in their possession for such a long period i.e. approximately 10 years and no interest has been offered to the complainant despite knowing the fact that the fault was on their part.
10. We are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the interest on the deposited amount as well as compensation.
11. Sequel to the above, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant, on the deposited amount, from the respective dates of deposit till realization.
It is made clear that the interest on the 10% deducted amount, which was paid later on, be calculated from the last instalments, which was paid on 31.12.2013.
ii) to pay Rs.65,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2021 9
12. The opposite parties shall comply with the above said directions within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER May 2nd , 2022 parmod