National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Swarn Jeet on 16 March, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 225 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 14/10/2016 in Appeal No. 441/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH IA/1402/2017 1. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SWARN JEET S/O. SHRI BHAG MAL, R/O. VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LORAYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 226 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 14/10/2016 in Appeal No. 442/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH
IA/1402/2017 1. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NARESH KUMAR BALI S/O. SHRI NARINDER NATH BALI, R/O. H.NO. 554-A, CHEEMA NAGAR, MITHAPUR ROAD, JALANDHAR CITY PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 16 Mar 2017 ORDER
1. By all these Revision Petitions, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, calls in question the correctness and legality of three orders, all dated 14.10.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 441, 442 and 443 of 2016. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 06.05.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalandhar (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 365, 364 and 222 of 2015 respectively. By the said orders, while accepting the Complaints preferred by the Complainants, the Respondents herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner herein in not completing the development and construction of the LIG flats in its Scheme, christened as Bibi Bhani Complex, Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Jalandhar, within the stipulated time, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainants the amounts received from them along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the said amounts till realization. The District Forum had also awarded the costs of litigation, quantified at ₹2,000/- each, in favour of the Complainants.
2. As noted above, on reconsideration of the material placed on record by the parties in support of their rival stands before the District Forum, the State Commission has affirmed the finding recorded by the District Forum that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not completing and providing all the facilities within the stipulated time, observing thus:
"A minute perusal of all the Clauses of the Allotment Letter makes it very much clear that the opposite party had undertaken to complete the flat and to provide all the facilities etc. within two and a half years of the issuance of the Allotment Letter and thereafter, that possession was to be made available to the complainant immediately on the execution of the Agreement to Sell by him. Admittedly, the flat was not constructed nor the development facilities were provided within that period. The written reply was filed before the District Forum on 19.11.2015. It is very much clear from the averments made therein that the completion of the flat was nowhere in picture on that date. As per those averments, the opposite party is still fighting litigation and steps are still to be taken by it for completing the flat and providing the facilities, but the complainant cannot be made to wait for indefinite period. The non-delivery of possession of the flat during the agreed period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and on account of that delay, the complainant became entitled to the refund of his amount, along with interest."
3. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that since the flats are now fully developed, with all the facilities, the State Commission was not justified in directing the Petitioner to refund the amounts deposited by the Complainants instead of directing them to take possession of the flats in question.
5. Having perused the documents on record and the fact that admittedly the amounts deposited by the Complainants, as directed by the District Forum, have been refunded, we are of the view that apart from the fact that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference on the afore-noted concurrent finding of fact relating to the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, even the final directions have themselves worked out, rendering the present Revision Petitions infructuous.
6. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER