National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gurdev Kaur vs Nawanshahr Improvement Trust on 24 August, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 544 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 17/08/2016 in Appeal No. 250/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH IA/2957/2017 1. ANIL KUMAR GARG S/O KAPOOR CHAND GARG R/O 5-B/249, MALL GODAM ROAD DHURI SANGRUR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAWANSHAHR IMPROVEMENT TRUST SHAHIB BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR THORUGH ITS CHAIRMAN /AAEXECUTIVE OFFICER LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 545 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 17/08/2016 in Appeal No. 264/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH
IA/2957/2017 1. KAMALDEEP BHUCHAR @ KANWAL DEEP BHUCHAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHUCHARAN NAWANSHAHR, TEHSIL NAWANSHAHR, DISTRICT SBS NAGAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAWANSHAHR IMPROVEMENT TRUST SHAHIB BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN / WXECUTIVE OFFIER LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 588 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 17/08/2016 in Appeal No. 249/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH IA/2957/2017 1. GURDEV KAUR W/O OF CAPT SUKHDEV SINGH, R/O VPO KARYAM,TEHSIL NAWANSHAHR, DISTRICT : SBS NAGAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAWANSHAHR IMPROVEMENT TRUST SHAHIB BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR, PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Dewan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate Mr. Jugal Kishor Gupta, Advocate Dated : 24 Aug 2017 ORDER JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, (ORAL) The petitioners/complainants booked one residential plot each with the respondent Nawanshahr Improvement Trust in Nawanshahr. Allotment letters were issued to all of them by the respondent Trust. The possession was to be delivered within 30 days from the issue of the allotment letter after execution of the agreement to sell. Alleging that the respondent had failed to deliver possession of the plots allotted to them and having further failed to provide basic amenities such as roads, street light, water supply, sewerage, electricity etc., the complainants / petitioners approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints, seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the respondent along with compensation.
2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which alleged that the complainants/petitioners were wilful defaulter in taking possession of the plots allotted to them. It was also claimed that all basic amenities such as roads, car parking, street light, water and sewerage connections had been provided.
3. The District Forum instead of directing refund of the amount, paid by the petitioners/complainants directed the respondent to deliver possession of the plots allotted to them along with cost of litigation of Rs.10000/- in each case. It was also directed that all the remaining basic facilities as enumerated in the brochure dated 30.6.2016 will also be provided by 30.6.2016 failing which, the respondent will be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount deposited by the petitioners/complainants till the said order was complied.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners/complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 17.8.2016, the State Commission partly accepted the appeals filed by them by directing payment of compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- in each case besides the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.10,000/- for each complainant. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioners/complainants are before this Commission by way of these three separate revision petitions.
5. The grievance of the petitioners/complainants is that they having asked for refund of the amount paid by them, the District Forum was not justified in directing possession of the plots allotted to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants states that possession of the plots even with compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each complainant is not acceptable to them.
6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent informed that the petitioners/complainants have already taken possession of their respective plots on 20.4.2016 and, therefore, the revision petitions have become infructuous.
7. On the aforesaid statement being made, the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants was asked to verify the said statement on telephone. On instructions, the learned counsel for the states that the petitioners/complainants have actually taken possession though according to him the possession has been taken under protest on account of the order passed by the District Forum. The learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants also states that even now the development is far from complete in the locality.
8. The order of the District Forum did not compel the petitioners/complainants in any manner to take possession of the plots allotted to them by the respondent. They having already preferred appeals against the order of the District Forum could very well have waited for the outcome of the said appeals if they were not interested in taking possession of the plots allotted to them. The order passed by the District Forum mandated the respondent to deliver possession of the plots in a time bound manner but it did not mandate the petitioners/complainants to accept possession if they were not willing to do so. In fact, the petitioners/complainants took possession of their respective plots even before the appeals filed by them came to be decided by the State Commission on 17.8.2016. Having taken possession of the plots allotted to them, the complainants are now precluded from claiming refund of the amount paid by them to the respondent. The revision petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this count alone and are dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER