Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) v. Veena Rani

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

1) First Appeal No.440 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer ..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Veena Rani w/o Devinder Kumar s/o Rajinder Kumar, resident of Ward No. 15, Boha Road, Near Unique Public School, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur. Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.N.S Jagdeva, Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2) First Appeal No.434 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer First Appeal No.440 of 2017 2 ..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Rajiv Kumar son of Ved Parkash s/o Tilak Ram, resident of Kathan Wali Gali, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur. Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte

3) First Appeal No.437 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer ..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Darshan Kumar son of Mangat Ram s/o Baru Mall c/o Mangat Ram Puneet Kumar Commission Agent, Shop No. 177, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur. First Appeal No.440 of 2017 3 Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte (4) First Appeal No.444 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer ..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Vinod Kumar Garg s/o Dev Raj Garg, resident of B-13/242, Rajindra Marg, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur. Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte

5) First Appeal No.447 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer ..Appellant/Opposite party First Appeal No.440 of 2017 4 Versus Balveer Singh son of Jangir Singh, resident of Village Bahadurpur, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur. Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate

6) First Appeal No.448 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer ..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Jiwan Kumar s/o Ram Krishan s/o Roshan Lal, resident of Ward No. 13, House No. 150, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur. Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte First Appeal No.440 of 2017 5 (7) First Appeal No.450 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer ..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Raj Kumar s/o Surender Kumar, resident of V&PO Chautala, District Sirsa (Haryana) Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur. Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Vikas Lochab, Advocate J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:- Since common question of controversy are involved in all the above-referred appeals, hence we intend to dispose of the above- referred appeals and they can be disposed of together. The above referred first appeals have been filed by Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA) Bathinda (opposite party in the complaints) against orders of District Consumer Disputes First Appeal No.440 of 2017 6 Redressed Forum Mansa (in short the 'District Forum'), accepting the complaint of the respondents of above referred appeals (complainants in the complaints) by directing the appellant (in each of the complaint) to refund the amount received by them from the respondents of above refereed appeals along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till date of payment. The District Forum further directed the appellants in above referred cases to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to respondents of above referred appeals. Respondents of above referred appeals are complainants in the above-referred complaints before District Forum and Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA) Bathinda appellants are opposite parties therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First Appeal no.440 of 2017 titled as "Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority versus Veena Rani." First Appeal No. 440 of 2017

2. The facts are taken from complaint no. 150 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Veena Rani U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act) against OP, giving rise to First Appeal No. 440 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada. Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for 500 sq. yards plot, through application no. 5224 and by depositing First Appeal No.440 of 2017 7 Rs.3,00,000/- as earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budhlada by OP, wherein she remained successful therein. Letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to her by OP. She paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/-to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that as per scheme, the possession of the plot was required to be handed over to complainant after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever was earlier. No development work was carried out by OP in the above scheme. She alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. She prayed for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a and compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment.

3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. OP averred that complainant purchased plot for commercial purpose only. Clause no. 12 of the letter of intent states that " the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of allotment letter, whichever is earlier." It was further pleaded that letter of intent is not allotment letter and there is no mention of any date about the delivery of possession of the plot to allottee. It was further averred that developments works at the site are in progress. The draw of plot numbers have been drawn on 03.06.2016 and allotment letter will be sent to allotteee at the earliest. This fact was admitted by OP that draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 and at that First Appeal No.440 of 2017 8 time, the rates of property were very high. But after 2013, the rates of properties slumped down and complainant just to save herself from that monetary loss, has filed the instant complaint. As per condition no. 22 of the letter of intent , if the allottee /complainant did not want to comply with the conditions of letter of intent or was not satisfied, then she could write letter to this effect to OP within 30 days from the date of letter of intent and could get back her earnest money, but she failed to do so in this case. She further deposited 15% of the amount of the plot. As per condition no. 15 of the letter of intent, " the letter of intent shall be transferable after receipt of 25% of total price of the plot, by way of sale, Gift, or otherwise with the prior permission of the Estate Office, PUDA, Bathinda, subject to the payment of 2.5% of the total price of the plot, as transfer fee and Rs.2500/- as process fee." On that basis, many allottees sold their plots after getting permission from OP for their transfer. The OP denied the other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant tendered in evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. As against it:, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurjant Singh EO, PUDA, Bathinda Ex.OP-1, copy of proforma Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Mansa accepted the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same. First Appeal No.440 of 2017 9 First Appeal No. 434 of 2017

5. The facts are taken from complaint no. 136 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Rajiv Kumar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act) against OP, giving rise to First Appeal No. 434 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada. Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for 100 sq. yards plot, through application no. 5115 and by depositing Rs.60,000/- as earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budlada by OP and he remained successful therein. Letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to him by OP. He paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.90,000/- to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that as per scheme, the possession of the plot was required to be handed over to complainant after completion of development works at site or

18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. No development work was carried out by OP in the above scheme. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. He prayed for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a and compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment.

6. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar averments and defences, as pleaded in complaint no. 136 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. First Appeal No.440 of 2017 10

7. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same. First Appeal No. 437 of 2017

8. The facts are taken from complaint no. 141 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Darshan Kumar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act) against OP, giving rise to First Appeal No. 437 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada, Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for

200 sq. yards plot, through application no. 4150 and by depositing Rs.1,20,000/- as earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budhlada by OP, he remained successful therein. Letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to him by OP. He paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.1,80,000/- to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that as per scheme, the possession of the plot was required to be hand over to complainant after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. No development work was carried out by OP in the above scheme. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. He First Appeal No.440 of 2017 11 prayed for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a and compensation of Rs. 1 lac for mental harassment.

9. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar averments, as pleaded in complaint no. 141 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same. First Appeal No. 444 of 2017

11. The facts are taken from complaint no. 159 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Vinod Kumar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act) against OP, giving rise to First Appeal No. 444 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada, Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for 200 sq. yards plot, through application no. 0733 and by depositing Rs.1,20,000/- as earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budhlada by OP, he remained successful therein. Letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to him by OP. He paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.1,80,000/- to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that as First Appeal No.440 of 2017 12 per scheme, the possession of the plot was required to be hand over to complainant after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. No development work was carried out by OP in the above scheme. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. He prayed for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a and compensation of Rs. 1 lac for mental harassment.

12. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar averments, as pleaded in complaint no. 159 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same. First Appeal No. 447 of 2017

14. The facts are taken from complaint no. 165 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Balbir Singh U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act) against OP, giving rise to First Appeal No. 447 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada, Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for 150 sq. yards plot, through application no. 2518 and by depositing First Appeal No.440 of 2017 13 Rs.60,000/- as earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budhlada by OP, he remained successful therein. Letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to him by OP. He paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.90,000/- to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that as per scheme, the possession of the plot was required to be hand over to complainant after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. No development work was carried out by OP in the above scheme. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. He prayed for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a and compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment.

15. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar averments, as pleaded in complaint no. 165 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

16. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same. First Appeal No. 448 of 2017

17. The facts are taken from complaint no. 166 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Jiwan Kumar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act) against OP, giving rise to First Appeal No. 448 of 2017, on the averments that OP First Appeal No.440 of 2017 14 launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada, Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for 150 sq. yards plot, through application no. 4867 and by depositing Rs.90,000/- as earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budlada by OP and he remained successful therein. Letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to him by OP. He paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.1,35.000/- to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that as per scheme, the possession of the plot was required to be handed over to complainant after completion of development works at site or

18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. No development work was carried out by OP in the above scheme. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. He prayed for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a and compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment.

18. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar averments, as pleaded in complaint no. 166 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

19. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same. First Appeal No.440 of 2017 15 First Appeal No. 450 of 2017

20. The facts are taken from complaint no. 175 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Raj Kumar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act) against OP, giving rise to First Appeal No. 450 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave at Budhlada, Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for 200 sq. yards plot, through application no. 4919 and by depositing Rs.1,20,000/- as earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budhlada by OP, he remained successful therein. Letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to him by OP. He paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.1,80,000/- to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that as per scheme, the possession of the plot was required to be hand over to complainant after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter whichever is earlier. No development work was carried out by OP in the above scheme. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. He prayed for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a and compensation of Rs.80,000/- for mental harassment.

21. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar averments, as pleaded in complaint no. 175 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. First Appeal No.440 of 2017 16

22. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.

23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the cases as in some of the appeals, respondents are exparte.

24. We take the facts from main First Appeal No. 440 of 2017, arising out of the complaint no. 150 of 2016 instituted on 01.06.2016 by Veena Rani. Pleadings and evidence on the record have been carefully perused by us. The complainant Veena Rani tendered her affidavit Ex.C-1 in evidence in support of her averments. OP issued letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 for 300 sq. yard plot to her @ Rs.6000/- per sq. yard, totaling Rs.18,00,000/- only. The complainant applied for 500 sq. yard plot, but OP allotted to her 300 sq. yard plot as per letter of intent Ex.C-2 dated 26.02.2013, vide no. PUDA-EO/2013/1737@ 6000/- per sq. yard. The total price of the plot was Rs.18 lac, as recorded in letter of intent Ex.C-2 on the record dated 26.02.2013. Veena Rani complainant wrote letter to OP on 28.02.2013, vide Ex.C-3 for submitting documents and her affidavit Ex.C-4. She paid Rs.1,80,000/- being 10% of the amount, as earnest money, as per certificate of State Bank of Patiala, vide Ex.C-5. Ex.C-6 is demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- sent to Estate Officer of OP. On the other hand, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjaint Singh Estate First Appeal No.440 of 2017 17 Officer of Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority Bathinda PUDA Ex.OP-1 on the record. He testified in his affidavit that Clause no. 12 of the letter of intent states that "the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allotee after completion of development work at site or 18 months from the date of allotment letter, whichever was earlier." He stated that letter of intent is not allotment letter. There is nothing in letter of intent, as to on which date, the possession would be delivered of the plot. He testified that draw of lots have been drawn on 03.06.2016 and allotment letter of the allotted plot was to be sent to complainant at the earliest. He admitted this fact that draw of this site was drawn on 15.01.2013, when the rates of the property were quite high. He further stated that as per clause 22 of the letter of intent, complainant could have withdrawn from this allotment within 30 days from the date of letter of intent and thereby received back earnest money. Ex.OP-2 is allotment letter of residential plot relied upon by OP.

25. From the conclusion of entire evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties in the above appeals, the first submission of counsel for the OP is that no allotment letter has been issued to complainant and it was only letter of intent, which was issued. He argued that there is word of difference between letter of intent and allotment letter and complainant cannot get any benefit from mere letter of intent in this case. We find no force in this submission of counsel for the appellant on this point. As per Clause 15 of letter of intent Ex.C-2, it is transferable and as such, the contention of OP now appellant is First Appeal No.440 of 2017 18 rejected by us at the first blush that it would confer no right on the complainant. Allotment letter cannot be postponed for any indefinite period by OP, as rightly observed by District Forum. The reliance of OP now appellant is on clause 12 of letter of intent dated 26.02.2013. We find that possession of the plot shall be handed over on the development of the project or within 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, which event was earlier. Letter of intent for all intents and purposes would operate as allotment letter in our view, when it is transferable. The OP cannot employ it to keep the complainant on tenterhooks for indefinite period regarding receiving of possession. Clause 12 of the letter of intent is silent on the point of completion of development work in the project , which cannot be for any indefinite period in our view. Two years to three's time is quite reasonable for development of the project, but from the scheme more than five years have about to come to pass, but still there is no completion certificate with OP of this project, as enjoined by Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment of Property and Regulation Act, 1995. The OP now appellant relied upon clause 22 of letter of intent to contend that complainant could have applied within 30 days period for withdrawal from this scheme by taking refund. We find that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP want to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant for an indefinite period without developing the project even in five years period at a stretch. Even at present, the development work has not been completed and there is no occupancy certificate obtained by OP from the competent authority under Section 14 of Punjab Apartment First Appeal No.440 of 2017 19 of Property and Regulation Act 1995. As per condition no. 15 of the letter of intent, it is transferable document after receipt of 25% of total price on the part of OP. Even otherwise, OP relied upon allotment letter Ex.OP-2, we find that it is undated and the columns of this document are lying blank. It is not signed in the appropriate form by the Estate Officer PUDA, as well. We find that this document is inconsequential, being undated and its columns still lying blank. Nothing can be made out from it as to when it was dispatched in this case to the allottee. We, thus, do not place much reliance upon it. OP floated scheme in the year 2012 and draw on the spot was held in the year 2013, when letter of intent was issued by OP to complainant on 26.02.2013. The OP has not produced on the file any site plan or any document to show that they have taken the possession of site in question and the site was being developed. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any allotment letter mentioning the plot number has been issued to the complainant at the instance of OP in this case. Merely placing on record incomplete proforma of the allotment letter of residential plot Ex.OP-2 does not show that the OP has clear cut intention to develop the project within the reasonable time frame. The complainants want refund of their money and they do not pray for delivery of possession of the plots to them in the above cases. In the circumstances of the case, when complainants do not pray for delivery of possession and only pray for refund of money, we find that District Forum rightly appreciated controversy in this case and directed the OP to refund the entire deposited amount of complainant with interest @ 9% from the date First Appeal No.440 of 2017 20 of receipt till the date of payment and costs of litigation for non development of project by OP within the stipulated/scheduled time.

26. As a result of our above discussion, all the above referred appeals are dismissed by affirming the orders of District Forum Mansa dated 10.03.2017 under challenge in these cases. First Appeal No. 440 of 2017

27. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited Rs.4,30,342/- vide receipt dated 17.10.2017. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant with 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. First Appeal No. 434 of 2017

28. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited Rs.68948/- vide receipt dated 17.10.2017. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant with 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. First Appeal No.440 of 2017 21 First Appeal No. 437 of 2017

29. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited Rs.1,51,154/- vide receipt dated 17.10.2017. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant with 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. First Appeal No. 444 of 2017

30. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited Rs.1,42,383/- vide receipt dated 17.10.2017. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant with 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. First Appeal No. 447 of 2017

31. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited Rs.1,31,103/-, as per order of this Commission. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by First Appeal No.440 of 2017 22 way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant with 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. First Appeal No. 448 of 2017

32. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited Rs.2,05,850/- vide receipt dated 17.10.2017. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant with 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. First Appeal No. 450 of 2017

33. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited Rs.2,80,728/- vide receipt dated 17.10.2017. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant with 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. First Appeal No.440 of 2017 23

34. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 14.12.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

35. Above appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases. (J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER December 18, 2017 (ravi)