National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Paramjit Kaur vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. on 24 August, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 471 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 12/09/2016 in Appeal No. 1019/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. PARAMJIT KAUR W/O. SH. SANESH SINGH, R/O. WARD NO. 4, MOHALLA BAJWA PATTI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-BARNALA PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANR. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ETC. JALANDHAR PUNJAB 2. THE CHAIRMAN/EXECUTIVE OFFICER JALANDHAR IMPROVEMNT TRUST, JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Dewan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. D. V. Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Madhu Bala Sandhu, Advocate
Dated : 24 Aug 2018 ORDER
By this common order, I propose to dispose off the above noted three revision petitions as they involve common question of law and facts arising out of the orders dated 12.09.2016 & 04.102.106 in Appeal Nos. 1019 of 2015, 1020 of 2015 and 690 of 2016.
2. Common facts in all these revision petitions are that the petitioners applied for allotment of residential plot in Surya Enclave Extension Development Scheme. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Draw of plot was held on 04.11.2011. Plot No. 11-D was allotted to Paramjit Kaur in a draw of plot, plot no. 47-D was allotted to Gurdeep Kaur and plot no. 32-D was allotted to Gurjunder Kaur. All the petitioners were issued allotment letters vide separate dates requiring them to deposit 10% of the total value of the plot by way of earnest money, which the petitioners duly paid. After the draw of lot, as per the terms of allotment letters and scheme of the project, a schedule of payment was issued to the petitioners / complainants. Admittedly, the petitioners / complainants have not paid any money as per the terms and conditions of the scheme / brochure and the allotment letter. It was the condition of the allotment letter that in case the payments are not made as per the schedule of payment, the money paid towards earnest money shall be forfeited. Admittedly, none of the petitioners had made the payment as per the schedule. They were required to pay further 15% within 30 days of the allotment letters which they failed to deposit. Consequently, thereupon their earnest money was forfeited.
3. Complainants / petitioners filed the complaint seeking refund of the earnest money. Their complaints were dismissed by the District Forum. The appeal against the said orders were also dismissed by the State Commission. The said orders have been impugned before this Commission.
4. It is contended that said forfeiture is wrong because there was no development and construction as per the scheme and, therefore, the respondent is wrong in forfeiting the earnest money. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the order of this Commission titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Munish dev Sharma passed in First Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 decided on 01.07.2015 alleging that in similar matter, this Commission had directed the present respondent to refund the earnest money.
5. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that findings in the case of Munish Dev Sharma has no application in the present case as same is given on the facts of that case. It is submitted that in the said case, Munish Dev Sharma had not defaulted in payment and had paid almost all the payments as per the schedule. He only defaulted in the last payment. It is submitted that he had also complied with terms and conditions of the allotment letter which required him to deposit 15% of the balance amount within one month which he had duly paid and he had made good of 25% of the total value of the plot as stipulated in the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is submitted that in this case the complainants / petitioners had defaulted in making 15% deposit of the value of plot after issuance of the allotment letter and they had paid only 10% before participating in the draw of lot which was in the form of earnest money and, therefore findings of the said case are not applicable. Rather, this case is squarely covered by the findings of the Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the case of Baljit Singh Sandhu Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust decided on 20.09.2016 wherein on the similar nature of fact, this Commission had clearly opined that earnest money cannot be refunded to an allottee who has defaulted in payment of 25% of the basic price within 30 days of the issue of letter of allotment.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of both the orders i.e. Munish Dev Sharma and Baljit Singh Sandhu, it is apparent that findings in Munish Dev Sharma are given entirely on different sets of facts while findings in Baljit Singh Sandhu's case has been given by this Commission on similar / identical set of facts. In Baljit Singh Sandhu's case, allottee had failed to make good of the payment of 25% value of the sale price within 30 days of the allotment letter and in these revision petitions also, the petitioners / complainants have also failed to make good of the payment of 25% of the sale consideration within 30 days of the allotment letter. The findings in the case of Baljit Singh Sandhu's case is, therefore, binding. The Coordinate Bench in the said case held as under:
4. The Earnest Money of successful applicants shall not be refunded in any case. It is thus, evident that while applying for the allotment of the plot, the petitioner/complainant knew that 15% of the total cost will have to be paid by him within one month from the issue of allotment letter and the balance amount would be payable in 5 equated 6 monthly instalments commencing six months from the date of allotment. Thus, the petitioner/complainant knew, at the time of submitting his application that he has to complete 25% of the payment inclusive of the application money within one month from the issue of allotment letter and the balance amount has to be paid by him in instalments as stipulated in the brochure containing the terms and conditions on which plots were offered by the respondent. The petitioner/complainant also knew that in case of default in payment, the earnest money would be forfeited.
6. The aforesaid terms and conditions also find incorporation in the allotment letter issued to the complainant. It was clearly stipulated in clause 3 of the allotment letter that in case the instalments were not deposited within the prescribed period, the plot would be forfeited as per rules. It was also stipulated in clause 6 of the allotment letter that 25% of the sale price has to be paid within 30 days failing which the respondent will have full right to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount deposited by the allottee.
7. Considering the terms and conditions of the scheme as also the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter, the complainant was under a contractual obligation to pay 25% of the sale price of the plot within 30 days from the issue of the allotment letter. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant did not pay 25% of the sale price of the plot within the aforesaid period. Therefore, exercising its right under the terms and conditions contained in the brochure and the allotment letter, the respondent was entitled to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount which the complainant/petitioner had deposited.
8. Even if it is accepted that there was no development going on at the site when allotment was made to the petitioner/complainant, he ought to have made payment as per the terms and conditions of the allotment since the payment plan stipulated in the scheme and the allotment letter was not a development linked plan but was a time linked plan wherein the allottee has to make payment in a time bound manner and in the event of default in making payment, the earnest money can be forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Had the petitioner/complainant made payment as per the terms and conditions of allotment and the respondent had failed to deliver possession of a developed plot, he would have been justified not only in seeking refund of the money paid by him but also claiming adequate compensation from the respondent. But, the petitioner/complainant himself having default in making payment of the instalments for the plot allotted to him, he cannot seek refund of the amount which he had deposited as earnest money.
7. In view of the above proposition of law, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders which calls for any interference by this Commission. Revision Petitions has no merits and same are accordingly dismissed.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER