Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Mar 7, 2017

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (07.03.2017)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a common order dated 07.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, deciding 26 consumer complaints arising out of allotments under a development scheme (Surya Enclave Extension) by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. The matters were heard together because they raised common questions of law and fact; the factual narrative is taken primarily from Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust).

In Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 the complainant Archit Gupta was allotted a 250 sq. yd. residential plot by allotment letter dated 23.12.2011. The allotment terms required either full payment within 30 days or staged instalments with execution of an agreement of sale within 30 days of the allotment letter and delivery of possession thereafter. The complainant paid the instalments and, by 18.6.2014, had paid a total of Rs. 48,99,075/-. Despite payment, the complainant was not delivered possession and observed little or no development on the site; some land remained under agriculture and plots were not demarcated. The complainant alleged that litigation (CWP No.3559 of 2011 and connected matters) between original landowners and the Trust, which included High Court-ordered status-quo/stay, precluded the Trust from having possession of a substantial portion of the land when allotments were made. The complainant sought refund with interest, compensation for unfair trade practice/deficiency in service and litigation costs under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The opposite parties (Jalandhar Improvement Trust and its officers) admitted allotment and receipt of Rs. 48,99,075/- but defended non-delivery of possession by reference to the High Court stay/status-quo and contended that development works and certain payments on development had been made. They denied deficiency and sought dismissal. The Commission framed and decided the matters together and gave specific directions in each complaint.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Jalandhar Improvement Trust's allotment and collection of substantial payments for plots, when it did not have physical possession of the land or had not completed development as promised, amounted to unfair trade practice and/or deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
If unfair trade practice or deficiency in service is established, whether the complainants are entitled to refund of amounts paid with interest, compensation for harassment/inconvenience, and litigation costs.
Whether the conduct of the Trust in continuing to accept instalments and not invoking cancellation clauses (where available) precluded it from denying the complainants' entitlement to possession or remedies.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

The Trust promoted and accepted bookings/allotments for plots though it did not have physical possession of a portion of the land and a status-quo/stay in favour of original landowners existed; this was an unfair trade practice.
The complainant paid the entire consideration (in instalments) as per the allotment terms but despite execution of an agreement, possession was not delivered and basic development works were not completed; this constituted deficiency in service.
Because of the Trust's failure the complainant suffered financial loss (inflation, rise in construction costs), mental agony and harassment; he sought refund with penal interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
The Trust had engaged in gross negligence by not ensuring land was free of encumbrances before inviting public applications.

Opposite Parties' Arguments

The Trust admitted allotment and receipt of money but asserted that non-delivery of possession was due to the High Court stay/status-quo in writ petitions (CWP No.3559 of 2011 and connected matters) involving original landowners, which prevented delivery.
The Trust contended that the complainant had not complied with all conditions of the allotment letter (e.g., getting the agreement executed within 30 days) and thus could not claim entitlement to possession; alternatively argued that development works had been undertaken and certain payments for development (to power and water authorities) were made.
The Trust relied on prior orders of this Commission (e.g., Joginder Singh v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Sohan Lal v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust) in which complaints were dismissed, to support its position that the present complaints should be dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Hardev Singh v. Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and Ors. (C.C. No.129 of 2015)	Referenced to the government correspondence requiring that Improvement Trusts should certify physical possession of sites free from encumbrances before allotment; Trusts should allot only when in a position to deliver possession.	The Commission relied on this line of authority and the related governmental instructions to conclude that the Trust should not have proceeded with allotments while the possession of substantial land was subject to status-quo/stay; this supported the finding of unfair trade practice.
Munish Dev Sharma v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & another (C.C. No.81 of 2013) and Sanjay Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another (C.C. No.82 of 2013)	These Commission decisions (and related appeals) addressed similar facts in the same development scheme and found for complainants; they illustrate that allotments despite status-quo amounted to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service.	The Commission treated these earlier Commission decisions and the subsequent appeals before the National Commission (see below) as persuasive authority showing that allotting plots while lacking unfettered possession and not providing developed plots amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, justifying refund and compensation.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Munish Dev Sharma (F.A. No.1215 of 2014) and Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Sanjay Gupta (F.A. No.1216 of 2014) — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decision (01.07.2015)	Held that the Trust, despite knowledge of High Court status-quo orders, issued allotment letters and collected money — conduct falling within "unfair trade practice" per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act; not delivering developed possession after accepting substantial payments amounts to deficiency and unfair practice.	The Commission quoted and relied on the National Commission's observations that allotting plots despite known impediments and withholding money without delivering developed possession amounts to fraud/unfair trade practice. The National Commission's reasoning reinforced the present Commission's conclusion and relief framework (refund, interest, compensation).
Joginder Singh v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another (C.C. No.150 of 2014) and Sohan Lal vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another (First Appeal No.253 of 2016)	These were earlier orders relied upon by the opposite parties (the Trust) where complaints had been dismissed.	The Commission distinguished those earlier orders on their facts (e.g., complainants there had not raised non-development or had not paid instalments in time). Because the facts differed materially, those decisions were not treated as controlling in the present matters.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's analysis proceeded in a sequential, fact-driven manner:

Admitted facts: The allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 (Ex.C-1) allotted the plot; the complainant paid Rs. 48,99,075/- in instalments and possession was not delivered. These facts were admitted by the opposite parties.
Allotment terms and Trust conduct: The allotment letter required execution of an agreement within 30 days and provided conditional rights to cancel forfeiting payments if complainant did not comply. The Commission noted that the Trust did not invoke its cancellation clause (Condition No.6) and, in fact, continued to accept instalments. Given the Trust's continued acceptance of payments, it could not thereafter deny that the complainant had become entitled to possession or to relief.
Possession and development: The complainant's evidence (affidavit Ex.C-A and documentary material) showed absence of requisite development and continued agricultural use/undemarcated plots. The Trust's evidence (affidavit of the Executive Officer Ex.OP/A and documents Ex.OP/1–Ex.OP/4) showed some development steps and payments to authorities, but much of that work post-dated the complaint and the recorded estimates and works undertaken did not demonstrate completion of development as promised in the allotment letter.
Impact of High Court proceedings: It was acknowledged that writ petitions (CWP No.3559 of 2011 and connected matters) and a status-quo/stay affected possession of part of the land. However, the Commission found that allotments were made despite such impediments. The Commission considered the National Commission's view that allotting plots while aware of such impediments amounted to unfair trade practice.
Comparative precedents: The Commission distinguished earlier Commission orders cited by the Trust (where facts differed — e.g., delayed payments, different pleadings) and relied on its own earlier decisions and the National Commission's findings in related appeals which condemned promoting/collecting money for a scheme when possession and development were not assured.
Conclusion on unfair trade practice/deficiency: Because the Trust proceeded with the scheme and accepted substantial payments despite not having the ability to deliver fully developed possession of plots (and because development, where shown, was partial and in many instances undertaken only after complaints were filed), the Trust's conduct amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Consequently, complainants were entitled to refund of amounts paid with interest, compensation for harassment, and litigation costs.

Holding and Implications

The Commission issued a common order disposing of 26 consumer complaints. The core rulings and their direct consequences are summarized below.

Core Ruling: The complaints were allowed. The Commission held that the Jalandhar Improvement Trust had engaged in unfair trade practices and/or deficiency in service in respect of the allotments under the Scheme, and directed refunds, interest, compensation and costs as specified.

Key specific directions (examples from the order):

In Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust): to refund Rs. 48,99,075/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until payment; to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation; and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as costs (Rs. 10,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission and Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant).
In each of the other complaints the Commission allowed the complaint and directed refund of the amounts specifically deposited by each complainant, interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the respective complaint until payment, payment of compensation in specified amounts (varying by case), and Rs. 20,000/- as costs with the same split (Rs. 10,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account and Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant).
The order enumerates each complaint with the exact sums to be refunded and the specific compensation awarded. (The opinion itself lists the amounts for each of the 26 complaints and the corresponding interest and costs provisions.)

Compliance and enforcement:

The opposite parties were directed to comply with the orders within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
If the opposite parties fail to comply within the stipulated period, the amount of compensation awarded in all the complaints will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order until realization.

Implications beyond the parties: The Commission's order reinforces that a public body (here, an Improvement Trust) that invites public subscriptions/allotments and collects substantial payments must ensure it is in a position to deliver fully developed possession before proceeding; issuing allotments despite known impediments to possession and delivering only partial development can constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, warranting refunds and compensation. The order also demonstrates the Commission's readiness to distinguish earlier contrary decisions on their facts.

No statement in this summary attempts to create new factual findings or legal conclusions beyond those explicitly set out in the opinion. The directions, amounts and legal reasoning summarized above are taken directly from the Commission's order.

Show all summary ...

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

1. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Date of institution : 20.04.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Archit Gupta aged about 28 years s/o Shri Parmod Kumar, 6433, Mohalla Bhai Ka, Purana Thana Road, Bathinda. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar (Residential Plot in Surya Enclave Extension) through its Executive Officer.

2. Executive Officer, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

2. Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2014 Date of institution : 18.09.2014 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Mrs. Pooja Garg W/o Shri Vijay Garg, C/o M/s Mohan Lal Tarsem Chand Karyana Merchant, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur, Punjab. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, Punjab, through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, Punjab. Opposite Parties

3. Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2014 Date of institution : 30.09.2014 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Jagat Nath r/o H.No.498, Street No.10, New Bishan Nagar, Patiala, Punjab. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

4. Consumer Complaint No.2 of 2015 Date of institution : 07.01.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Sukhdev Singh Sehgal son of Shri Jagir Singh Sehgal, resident of B- 13/2, Shastri Market, Jalandhar. .Complainant Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust, near Hotel Skylark, Civil Lines, Jalandhar through its Chairman. Opposite Party

5. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2015 Date of institution : 12.03.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Col. RS Ghotra (Retd.) s/o Shri Kehar Singh r/o # 2034, Jal Vayu Vihar, Sector 67, Mohali, Pin-160 062. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

6. Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2015 Date of institution : 15.04.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Harbhajan Singh son of S. Sucha Singh, resident of Village Dulchi Ke, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. .Complainant Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust through its Chairman, near Skylark Hotel, Jalandhar City, Punjab. Opposite Party

7. Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2015 Date of institution : 20.04.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Darshan Lal s/o Late Shri Gian Chand, aged 80 years, resident of House No. 1155, Gali Archarjia, New Shashtri Market, Amritsar. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar (Residential Plot in Surya Enclave Extension) through its Executive Officer.

2. Executive Officer, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

8. Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2015 Date of institution : 20.04.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Mintu Sood aged about 63 years w/o Shri Vinod Chander Sood, H.No. 46, Shakti Nagar, Model Gram, Ludhiana-141 002. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar (Residential Plot in Surya Enclave Extension) through its Executive Officer.

2. Executive Officer, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

9. Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2015 Date of institution : 20.04.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Rajesh Verma s/o Shri Harbans Lal, R/o 1931/82/7B, Gandhi Nagar, Gali No.8, Ludhiana (Punjab). .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

10. Consumer Complaint No.154 of 2015 Date of institution : 30.06.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Sanjiv Kumar son of Shri Sat Pal, resident of 282/2, Old Anaj Mandi, Tohana, District Fatehabad. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

11. Consumer Complaint No.177 of 2015 Date of institution : 22.07.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Bhim Singh Kundu s/o Shri Mansa Ram, R/o H.No.C-06, Guru Jambheshwar University, S & T Campus, Hisar (Haryana). .Complainant Versus The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, Model Town Road, Jalandhar-144 001 Ph: (0181) 2456707, 2459824, 2459821, 2224169, through its Chairman/Executive Officer. Opposite Party

12. Consumer Complaint No.185 of 2015 Date of institution : 03.08.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Bharat Bhushan Bhutani s/o Shri Chetan Das Bhutani, R/o 1528, Urban Estate-2, Hisar, Haryana. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

13. Consumer Complaint No.186 of 2015 Date of institution : 03.08.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Rajinder Kumar Godara s/o Shri Jagram Godara, r/o 1155, Urban Estate-2, Hisar, Haryana. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

14. Consumer Complaint No.187 of 2015 Date of institution : 03.08.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Surender Lal Yadav s/o Shri Suraj Singh Yadav, r/o 228-OId P.L.A. Kaimiri Road, Hisar. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

15. Consumer Complaint No.190 of 2015 Date of institution : 05.08.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Jatinder Pal Singh aged 58 years s/o Lt. Harbhajan Singh, 134, LGF World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. .Complainant Versus Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar (Residential plot in Surya Enclave Extension) through its Executive Officer.

2. Executive Officer, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

16. Consumer Complaint No.205 of 2015 Date of institution : 18.08.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Harbans Singh s/o Shri Amar Singh, R/o Village Bahurian Sainian, Post Office Jagowal Bet, Gurdaspur. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

17. Consumer Complaint No.206 of 2015 Date of institution : 18.08.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Tarsem Singh s/o Shri Mulkha Singh, R/o Village Passnawal, Gurdaspur. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

18. Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015 Date of institution : 04.09.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Raj Kumar Setia son of Shri Chiman Lal Setia, resident of Street No.2, New Suraj Nagri, Chowk No.12, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka. .Complainant Versus

1. The Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, District Jalandhar.

2. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, District Jalandhar, through its Executive Officer. Opposite Parties

19. Consumer Complaint No.222 of 2015 Date of institution : 04.09.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Harmanjit Singh s/o Shri Nirmal Singh, Village Bhundian, P.O. Behram Sarishta, Jalandhar. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, District Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

20. Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2015 Date of institution : 11.09.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Navneet Goyal son of Shri Udesh Goyal, H.No.805, Krishna Basti, Patiala Gate, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

21. Consumer Complaint No.241 of 2015 Date of institution : 21.09.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Alka Jindal w/o Shri Parveen Jindal, R/o H.No. 43, Gian Colony, Near Sant Nagar, Patiala (Punjab). .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

22. Consumer Complaint No.242 of 2015 Date of institution : 21.09.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Harpal Singh Arora s/o Shri Jai Ram Arora, R/o H.No.5, Nirbhai Colony, Peeli Sarak, Raghomajra, Patiala (Punjab). .Complainant Versus Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

23. Consumer Complaint No.243 of 2015 Date of institution : 21.09.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Parampal Singh s/o Shri Resham Singh, R/o H.No.344, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar (Punjab). .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

24. Consumer Complaint No.255 of 2015 Date of institution : 29.09.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Jatinder Singh s/o Shri Hardyal Singh, VPO Rajowala, Faridkot, Punjab. .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

25. Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2015 Date of institution : 12.10.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Kusam Kumar s/o Shri Bhagwan Singh c/o Parminder Kumar, Street No.12-13, First Cross, Sunder Nagari, Abohar, now r/o House No.4308, Raja Cinema Road, Tehsil & District Fazilka-152 123 (Punjab). .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties

26. Consumer Complaint No.334 of 2015 Date of institution : 22.12.2015 Date of decision : 07.03.2017 Anil Kumar Chowdhary s/o Shri Sarwan Kumar Chowdhary, R/o 140/14, Subhash Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar (Punjab). .Complainant Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive Officer.

2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Opposite Parties Consumer Complaints under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:- For the complainant : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Shri Sandeep Khunger, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: All the above referred 26 Consumer Complaints are being decided by this common order, as common questions of law and facts, except some minor variations, here and there, are involved in these complaints. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015.

2. The complainant, Archit Gupta, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the amount of 48,99,075/-, along with interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of deposits till realization; ii) to pay 5,00,000/- on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment; iii) to pay 55,000/-, as litigation expenses. He averred therein that the opposite parties floated a Development Scheme over an area of 94.97 Acres for the allotment of freehold residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar for which booking commenced from 8.8.2011 and applications were invited from the general public and for which the advertisement was circulated through different channels. He Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 purchased application form and submitted the same through the authorized Bank, along with application money of 4,25,000/- for the allotment of plot under General category. He applied for a plot of

250 square yards, the price of which was 17,000/- per square yard. The allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 was sent to him and vide that letter, he was allotted Plot No.110-D. The terms and conditions were detailed in the allotment letter itself. Vide that letter, he was asked to deposit the entire price of the plot (42,50,000/-) within 30 days of the date of issuance of that letter and in case he wanted to deposit that amount by way of instalments, then one-fourth of that amount, along with cess charges, site plan charges and agreement fee was to be deposited within 30 days and the remaining 75% of the price was to be paid in 5 instalments detailed therein. The possession of the plot could have been taken after entering into agreement of sale, which was to be got executed within 30 days of the date of that letter. On 20.12.2013 the complainant submitted a letter, vide receipt No.1721 with the opposite parties to give possession of the plot so that he may start the construction. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the plot, rather asked the complainant to pay all the instalments. Thereafter the complainant deposited the 5th instalment on 23.12.2013. On 3.1.2014 the complainant again sent a reminder letter for possession of the plot through registered post. Thereafter as per assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant executed an agreement on 10.4.2014 regarding the plot in question for the possession. On 18.6.2014 the Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 complainant deposited the last instalment of 6,69,375/- and in this way the complainant paid the entire consideration amount of the plot to the tune of 48,99,075/-, as per the details given in para No.5 of the complaint. In-spite of that, opposite parties have failed to deliver the possession of the residential plot to him and to complete the facilities in the said Scheme. Due to non-delivery of possession of allotted plot, he cannot take further steps for getting the site plan sanctioned and to start the construction within the stipulated period of three years. After the deposit of the entire amount, the complainant again visited the site and noticed that there is no sign of any development at the site. Even there is no demarcation of the plots at the site till date and the land is still used for agriculture purpose. Now, the complainant came to know that some dispute between the opposite parties and the original land owners had been going on, which has not been sorted out so far. The opposite parties exhibited gross negligence in the performance of their duties by not ensuring that there was no encumbrance on the land acquired under the Scheme before proceeding to collect the moneys from the consumers for the allotment of the plots. This amounts to deficiency in service on their part; as a result of which he suffered huge loss. He visited the opposite parties repeatedly and called upon them either to deliver the possession of the plot or to refund the amount, so deposited by him, along with interest. They expressed their inability to deliver the vacant possession of the plot. He also alleged in his complaint that Arjan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Devinder Kumar, Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Kewal Singh, Amrik Singh and Bhajan Singh, petitioners/original land owners filed Civil Writ Petition No.3559 of 2011 on 23.2.2011 against the opposite parties and State of Punjab etc., vide which they sought the quashing of the Notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, for the acquiring of the land for the Scheme and for the quashing and setting aside of the Notice under Section 38 and Notification issued under Section 42 of the said Act. Out of the total area of 94.97 acres, 32 acres is the subject-matter of that writ petition. The Honble High Court had stayed the dispossession from big portion of the land, so acquired. In these circumstances, he cannot be made to suffer and the directions prayed for in the complaint, are liable to be issued to the opposite parties.

3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply. In their written reply they admitted that the complainant had applied for 250 square yard plot and he was allotted one of such plot, vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 and that 10% of the earnest money was deposited by him. They also admitted that the complainant has already paid 48,99,075/-, against the total price of the plot and that the possession thereof was not delivered to him. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that due to the stay granted by the Honble High Court, the opposite parties are unable to deliver the possession of the plot. The writ petitions filed by Arjan Singh and others were listed before the Honble High Court on 25.8.2015, however, the Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 same had been adjourned to 8.9.2015. They further pleaded that on disposal of the writ petitions, the possession of the plot shall be offered to the complainant. They denied that the complainant has made the payments regularly as per the Schedule mentioned in the Buyers Agreement. It has been pleaded that they have provided basic facilities at the spot. The area which was low lying has been filled with earth and katcha roads have been constructed but have not been metalled because the same are damaged with the passing of the trucks carrying the building material for the construction of the houses. The roads shall be metalled after completion of at least some of the houses in the area. The opposite parties have made the payment of 1,60,826/- to Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. for the shifting of electric poles and cables from the land. They have further spent a sum of 254.27 lakhs upto 21.2.2015 on various development works in the scheme in question. Still further a sum of 40,00,000/- has been paid to the Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chandigarh for development in the scheme in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have exhibited gross negligence in the performance of their part and there is any deficiency in service. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-A and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 and Mark-A to Mark-C. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence the affidavit of Jatinder Singh, Executive Officer, Ex.OPA and the documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

5. We have carefully gone through the averments of the parties, the evidence produced by them in support of their respective averments and have also heard learned counsel on their behalf.

6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice by preparing the Scheme and inviting applications for the allotment of plots in that Scheme knowing fully well that it was not in a position to demarcate and allot the plots on account of the dispute already going on between them and the land owners regarding the possession of the land forming part of that Scheme and regarding which the stay/status-quo had already been granted by the Honble High Court. As per the allotment letter, the agreement of sale was to be executed between the parties and the possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainant within 30 days of the execution of that agreement. The agreement was executed between the parties but the possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant nor the opposite parties were in a position to deliver the same. After the allotment of the plot, the complainant became the consumer of the opposite parties and the non-delivery of the possession of the plot amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On account of that deficiency in service the complainant suffered loss and injury; as a result of the inflation of the money and the rise in the prices of the construction material. In all these circumstances the complainant is not only entitled to the refund of the price of the plot paid by him, along with penal interest as claimed in the Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 complaint, but is also entitled to compensation and the litigation costs, as prayed therein.

7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant failed to comply with the conditions, as mentioned in the allotment letter, Ex.C-1 and on account thereof, the possession of the plot was not delivered to him. He never got Agreement executed within the period of 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter and never came forward to take possession of the plot in dispute. Due to the stay granted by the Honble High Court, the opposite parties were unable to deliver the possession of the plot. Now, that matter was considered by the Honble High Court and vide judgment dated 22.12.2015 dismissed the said writ petition along with 16 other connected writ petitions. On the dismissal of the writ petitions the possession of the remaining land has also been obtained by the Trust and the development works in the entire area have been started by the Trust which is in full swing. In all these circumstances, the complainant cannot ask for the refund of his money nor he is entitled to any such compensation. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the judgments passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.150 of 2014 (Joginder Singh v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 20.7.2015, in which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed and in First Appeal No.253 of 2016 (Sohan Lal vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 13.10.2016 in which the complaint filed by the Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 complainant before the District Forum was dismissed and the appeal filed against that order was also dismissed.

8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Admittedly, the plot, in dispute, was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011, Ex.C-1. It is also an admitted fact that towards the total price of the plot, so mentioned in the allotment letter, he has already deposited 48,99,075/-. It is also admitted that the possession of the plot has not been delivered to the complainant nor the opposite parties are in a position to deliver the same. As per condition No.5 of allotment letter, the complainant was to attend the office of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust within 30 days and was to take with him two witnesses and stamp paper of 500/- for getting the Agreement executed. It is not the case of the complainant that he complied with that condition. However, from the evidence produced on the record by him, it stands proved that all the instalments, as stipulated by this letter of allotment have already been deposited by him. If the complainant had not himself appeared in the office to get the Agreement executed, the opposite parties could have invoked condition No.6, vide which they were authorized to cancel the allotment and to forfeit the amount already deposited by the complainant. They never invoked that clause and continued to receive the instalments from the complainant. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite parties to say that the complainant never became Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 entitled to the possession of the plot on account of the non-execution of the Agreement.

10. It is very much clear from the terms and conditions of the allotment letter that all the development facilities were to be provided within two and a half years by the opposite parties. The complainant has sworn in his affidavit that no development has taken place at the spot and rather there is status-quo order regarding the land, which was issued by the Honble High Court in the writ petition filed by the land owners. That fact has not been denied by the opposite parties. In similar case i.e. in C.C. No.129 of 2015 decided by this Commission (Hardev Singh v. Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and Ors.), the complainant produced on record the letter dated 21.10.2005 (Memo No.6/44/05-4LG2/16729-90) written by the Local Government Department, Punjab to all the Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab, as per which before commencement of the process of allotment of the plot in the Scheme, the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Improvement Trusts were to certify on record that physical possession of the site(s) of proposed allotment/auction free from all encumbrances/obstructions was readily available for onward transmission to the prospective allottees and that there was no physical obstruction to start the construction activities. In fact, this was the position taken up by the State of Punjab in the letter dated 23.2.1983 (Memo No.66-I-3GII-83/7070-7090) which was reiterated. In that letter it was mentioned that as far as possible the Improvement Trusts shall allot/auction the sites only when they were Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 sure that they were in a position to deliver the possession of the site to the purchaser. It is a fact that the possession of the whole of the land which form part of the Scheme was not with the opposite parties when they commenced the process of allotment of plots to the complainant and the other applicants. The original land owners were in possession thereof, who had obtained the status-quo order from the Honble High Court. In these circumstances the opposite parties should not have proceeded with the Scheme and by indulging in the activity of allotting the plots in the Scheme, when possession of whole of the land was not with them, amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.

11. It was the possession of the developed plot, which was to be given to the complainant. The next question to be determined is, whether the opposite parties have made the required development at the site? It has been specifically deposed by the complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-A that no such development has been done by the opposite parties and the land, in dispute, is still used for agriculture purpose. To rebut that deposition of the complainant, the opposite parties proved on record the affidavit of Jatinder Singh, Executive Officer, Ex.OP/A in which he deposed that some of the land owners approached the Honble High Court by filing CWP No.3559 of 2011 titled Arjan & others v. State of Punjab and others. Honble High Court passed the order of status quo regarding possession in favour of the land owners. Due to the stay granted by the Honble High Court, the opposite parties were unable to deliver the possession of Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 the plot. The matter was considered by the Honble High Court and dismissed the said writ petition along with 16 other connected writ petitions, vide judgment dated 22.12.2015. It has further been deposed in his affidavit that on the dismissal of the writ petitions the possession of the remaining land has also been obtained by the Trust and after obtaining the possession of the remaining land the development works in the entire area have been started by the Trust which are in full swing. The funds have been made available to Water Supply and Sewerage Board for laying the water supply and sewerage lines. The Trust has already started getting the work executed in this area. The opposite parties proved on record documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/4 for corroborating that deposition of the Executive Officer. Ex.OP-1 is the letter dated 21.11.2012 written by the opposite parties to Punjab State Power Corporation Limited in respect of payment of Rs.1,60,826/- for shifting of the electric wires and the poles. Ex.OP-2 is the Detail of Estimated Cost and Development Works done at the site. Ex.OP-3 is the estimate for providing Water Supply Scheme in 94.97 Scheme of the opposite parties. Ex.OP-4 is the list of complete works and the list of works for which tenders were being floated. This is dated 5.10.2015 i.e. much after the filing of the complaint. Moreover, it cannot be concluded from this evidence that the development was completed by the opposite parties, as required by the letter of allotment. It appears that all this exercise for making development was started by the opposite parties after the filing of the present complaint. The Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 estimated costs of the works are mentioned in those documents and the work done is not as per those estimated costs and is much less than those estimated costs. The omission on the part of the opposite parties in developing the Scheme as per their undertaking given in the allotment letter also amounts to unfair trade practice.

12. The facts of the above said cases, in which the orders so relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties were passed by this Commission, were different. The above said letters of the Government of Punjab sent to the Improvement Trust were neither proved before us nor were referred at the time of arguments. In those complaints the complainants had not raised their objections regarding the non-development at the site and they had made prayer for the possession of the plots, so allotted to them and they had written letters to the opposite parties for delivery of possession of plots to them and in pursuance of those letters, they were asked to execute the Agreement to Sell and to get possession of the plots. Moreover, in those complaints the complainants have not paid the instalments in time. The facts of the present cases are different. The first letter dated 20.12.2013 Ex.C-9 was written by the complainant to the opposite parties for the delivery of possession of the plot. Next letter dated 3.1.2014 Ex.C-10 was written by the complainant to the opposite parties for giving possession of the plot. The complainant also demanded the possession along with some other information on dated 3.3.2014 Ex.C-11. He further wrote letter to the opposite parties dated 27.5.2014 Ex.C-12 stating therein that if Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 there is any problem in giving the possession, then kindly arrange to refund him the deposited instalments with interest upto the date of payment and close the chapter. From the above discussion, it is very much clear that only partial development has been made at the spot and the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver possession of fully developed plot to the complainant and that they adopted unfair trade practice.

13. Similar question had arisen before this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.81 of 2013 (Munish Dev Sharma v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and another) and Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2013 (Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another) both decided on 30.07.2014. Those complaints were filed in respect of the plots in the same Scheme and the facts were similar. The complaints were allowed and against those orders, the opposite parties preferred the appeals F.A. No.1215 of 2014 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Munish Dev Sharma) and F.A. No.1216 of 2014 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Sanjay Gupta) respectively before the Honble National Commission, which were decided on 01.07.2015. The Honble National Commission held as under:-

26. Thus, it is manifestly clear from the above order that as on 8.3.2011, there was Status quo regarding possession. However, the appellants despite having full knowledge of the above order of the High Court, issued allotment letters on 26.12.2011 and 23.12.2011, in respect Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 of plots in question. Therefore, above facts clearly goes on to show, that at the time of issuance of the allotment letters in respect of plots in question, it was well within the knowledge of the Appellant-Trust, that there was an impediment in allotment of the plots in question. In spite thereof, Appellant-Trust had gone ahead and allotted plots in question to the respondents, which it could not have done so. In this manner, appellants have played fraud with the general public and thus collected huge amount of money.

27. The aforesaid act of the appellants, clearly falls within the meaning of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act, relevant portion of which states; (r) unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

28. Appellants having full knowledge that the scheme in question could not see the light of the day, still promoted the scheme to befool the public. Thus, appellants have adopted unfair method as well as deceptive practice in promoting the sale of the plots in question. This act of Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 appellants, is squarely covered within the meaning of Unfair Trade Practice.

29. Furthermore, appellants after having taken substantial amount from the respondents in the year 2011, are still enjoying their hard earned money for last many years. Now, when appellants are not in a position to allot the plots in a habitable condition to the respondents, then why they are still withholding respondents money. There is no reasonable and plausible explanation, in this regard from the side of the appellants. We deplore such unfair trade practices being adopted by the Appellant-Trust, which is a Public Body.

30. It would also be pertinent to observe, that appellants have not given any firm date of handing over the possession of plots in question, to the respondents which also is a Deceptive Practice. The appellants should have given firm date of handing over of possession, at the time of taking booking amount. By not indicating the true picture with regard to their scheme to the respondents, appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.

31. Thus, appellants by not delivering the physical possession of fully developed plots to the respondents, till date even after having received more than 90% of the price Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 thereof, are not only deficient in rendering service but are also guilty of indulging into unfair trade practice.

32. Appellants in the present case, wants to have the cake and eat it too, as admittedly they have received about 90% of the sale price of the plots. The appellants are thus enjoying possession of the plots as well as substantial amount of consideration paid by the respondents. On the other hand, respondents after having paid substantial amount of the sale consideration, are still empty handed.

34. Such type of unscrupulous act on the part of Appellant- Trust should be dealt with heavy hands, who after grabbing the money from the purchasers, enjoy and utilize their money but do not hand over the plots on one pretext or the other. Appellants want the respondents to run from one fora to other, so that appellants can go on enjoying the respondents money without any hindrance.

35. It is well settled, that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless appeal in consumer foras. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree, must be dealt with heavy hands. Unscrupulous developer like Appellant-Trust, who after taking almost entire cost of the plots, do not Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 perform their part of obligation, should not be spared. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of Public Bodies, that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters. When such is the position, we conclude that the complainant on account of the adoption of unfair trade practice by the opposite parties is entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him towards the price of the plot, along with interest and for the harassment having been suffered by him at the hands of the opposite parties is also entitled to compensation.

14. Accordingly the complaint (CC No.88 of 2015) is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 48,99,075/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 4,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

2. Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2014:

15. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 38,99,638/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

16. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 38,99,638/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

3. Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2014:

17. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

500 square yards and deposited the amount of 19,56,950/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

18. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 19,56,950/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation; and Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

4. Consumer Complaint No.02 of 2015:

19. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

356 square yards and deposited the amount of 59,32,940/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

20. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 59,32,940/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 5,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

5. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2015:

21. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 39,19,450/- with the Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

22. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 39,19,450/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

6. Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2015:

23. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 39,43,150/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

24. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:- Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

i) to refund the sum of 39,43,150/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 1,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

7. Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2015:

25. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

100 square yards and deposited the amount of 19,69,200/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

26. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 19,69,200/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

8. Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2015:

27. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 39,43,580/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

28. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 39,43,580/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

9. Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2015:

29. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 12,33,450/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

30. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 12,33,450/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 1,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

10. Consumer Complaint No.154 of 2015:

31. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 22,69,450/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

32. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 22,69,450/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation; and Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

11. Consumer Complaint No.177 of 2015:

33. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

365 square yards and deposited the amount of 33,90,780/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

34. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 33,90,780/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 1,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

12. Consumer Complaint No.185 of 2015:

35. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 35,34,600/- with the Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

36. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 35,34,600/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

13. Consumer Complaint No.186 of 2015:

37. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 35,62,705/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

38. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:- Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

i) to refund the sum of 35,62,705/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

14. Consumer Complaint No.187 of 2015:

39. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 35,60,650/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

40. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 35,60,650/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

15. Consumer Complaint No.190 of 2015:

41. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

500 square yards and deposited the amount of 24,65,950/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

42. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 24,65,950/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

16. Consumer Complaint No.205 of 2015:

43. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 39,55,510/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

44. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 39,55,510/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

17. Consumer Complaint No.206 of 2015:

45. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 28,59,530/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

46. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 28,59,530/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

18. Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015:

47. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 48,99,075/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

48. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

19. Consumer Complaint No.222 of 2015:

49. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 33,83,950/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

50. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 33,83,950/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

20. Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2015:

51. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 39,19,450/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

52. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 39,19,450/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

21. Consumer Complaint No.241 of 2015:

53. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

356 square yards and deposited the amount of 70,69,593/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

54. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 70,69,593/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 7,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

22. Consumer Complaint No.242 of 2015:

55. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

56. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

23. Consumer Complaint No.243 of 2015:

57. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

200 square yards and deposited the amount of 39,33,950/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

58. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:- Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

i) to refund the sum of 39,33,950/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 3,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

24. Consumer Complaint No.255 of 2015:

59. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 49,30,325/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

60. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 49,30,325/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 4,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015

25. Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2015:

61. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

356 square yards and deposited the amount of 79,52,663/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

62. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 79,52,663/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 7,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

26. Consumer Complaint No.334 of 2015:

63. In this complaint, the complainant applied for a plot measuring

250 square yards and deposited the amount of 42,61,575/- with the opposite parties. A prayer for refund of the same along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses has been made.

64. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the sum of 42,61,575/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment; ii) to pay 4,00,000/-, as compensation; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs, out of which 10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

65. In all the complaints, the opposite party/opposite parties is/are directed to comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

66. If the opposite party/opposite parties has/have failed to comply with the orders in all the complaints within the stipulated period, then the amount of compensation awarded, vide this order in all the complaints shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

67. The complaints could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER March 07, 2017 Bansal

Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust

CC/88/2015

Structured Summary of the Opinion: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (07.03.2017)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

Opposite Parties' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications