STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 Date of institution : 23.01.2019 Reserved On : 03.06.2019 Date of decision : 13.06.2019 Raj Rani wife of Sh. Sunder Lal, Resident of House No.14, Guru Nanak Nagar Colony, Cheeka, Haryana. .Complainant Versus

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA), through its Chief Administrator, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali. E-mail ID:helpdesk@puda.gov.in

2. Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA, PUDA Complex, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala. E-mail ID: helpdesk@puda.gov.in .Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:- For the complainant : Sh. Rahul Rampal, Advocate For the opposite parties: Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT : The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:

i) to refund the entire amount of 10,04,000/- received by them; Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 ii) to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the above said amount till realization; iii) to pay 4,00,000/- as damages on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and iv) to pay 25,000/- as litigation expenses. Facts of the Complaint

2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the opposite parties floated a scheme for allotting residential plots at PUDA Enclave, Nabha and made advertisement about world class living in the said project. Believing their representations, the complainant applied for allotment of a plot, measuring 300 sq.yds. in the said scheme, for residence of her family and she was allotted plot No.275, measuring 300 sq.yds. under general category, vide allotment letter dated 19.08.2015; wherein price of the plot was fixed as 21,60,000/-, calculated at the rate of 7,200/- per sq.yds. The complainant initially paid a sum of 5,40,000/- and thereafter paid a sum of 4,64,000/- as per terms of the allotment letter. Thus, a total sum of 10,04,000/- stood deposited with the opposite parties towards the price of the plot. As per Clause 6 (i) of the allotment letter, possession of the plot was to be delivered after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, whichever was earlier. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the development works and to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant within the said stipulated period. In order to bring out the actual position of the Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 Enclave, the complainant engaged services of a Civil Engineer Sh. H.G. Ahluwalia, who visited the site and gave his detailed report, as mentioned in Para-5 of the complaint, concluding that there were many discrepancies in the project and the development works were not completed by the opposite parties and that the project was unfit for human habitation. The opposite parties have no Completion/ Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities to show that the site is developed in all respects and is habitable. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, as a result of which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint. Defence of the Opposite Parties

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as per the Act, on the ground that the plot was purchased by her for speculative purpose. The complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. After completion of the development works, a letter dated 23.10.2017 was written to the complainant to take possession of the allotted plot within

30 days from the issuance of the said letter. Thereafter, public notices were issued in newspapers The Tribune and Ajit on 26.10.2017, intimating the allottees to take the possession of the allotted plots within the said period. In response to said notices, number of allottees had already taken possession, but the complainant never came forward to take the possession of the allotted plot. It was further Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 objected that complainant had not paid the due instalments, as per the allotment letter and had become defaulter and, as such, she has no locus standi to approach this Commission. The complaint is also barred by limitation. Intricate question of law and facts are involved in the complaint; which cannot be decided in summary proceedings. On merits, allotment of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant was admitted. It was pleaded that Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 13.04.2015 was issued and after payment of 25% of cost of the plot, allotment letter dated 19.08.2015 was issued. However, the complainant failed to pay the due amount as per the allotment letter and, as such, notices under Section 45 (1), 45(2) and 45(3) of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 were issued to her. It was further pleaded that photographs of the site, along with certificate date 16.03.2019 of Sub Divisional Engineer, PH-2, regarding clicking of photographs along with Junior Engineer on 16.03.2019, show that all the basic amenities are available at site. Still the complainant has neither taken the possession of the allotted pot, nor has paid the due instalments. It was further pleaded that Partial Completion Certificate dated 08.01.2019 issued by Chief Administrator, PDA, Patiala shows that all the basic amenities with regard to roads, public health service and electrical services had been completed on 30.04.2018, as per sanctioned layout plan. Thus, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 Evidence of the Parties

4. To prove her claim, the complainant, along with the complaint, filed her own affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14.

5. The opposite parties, along with their reply, filed self attested affidavit of Sh. Dhamandeep Kaur, Estate Officer and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10. Contentions of the Parties

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the opposite parties failed to complete the development works at the site within the stipulated period, as per terms of the LoI and allotment letter. The complainant had already deposited a sum of 10,04,000/- towards the price of the plot. LoI, Ex.C-2, was issued on 13.04.2015, whereas the allotment letter, Ex.C-3, was issued on 19.08.2015 i.e. after four months of the issuance of LoI. As per Clause 6(i) of the Allotment Letter, the possession of the plot was to be delivered after completion of development works at the site or 18 months from the date of the allotment letter, whichever was earlier. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the development works at the site. The complainant also verified the fact of non- completion of developments works at site, by availing services of Civil Engineer, who submitted his detailed report, Ex.C-5, in this regard, stating that the project is not fit for human habitation, as no development works have been completed. The opposite parties have Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 also not obtained Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities to prove that the site is developed in all respects and is habitable. Due to default on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by her, along with interest and compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the order dated 11.09.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.420 of 2018 (Usha Rani v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Anr.).

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that after completion of the development works, the complainant offered possession of the allotted plot, vide letter dated 23.10.2017, asking her to take the possession within 30 days from the issuance of the said letter. Thereafter, public notice was issued in newspapers The Tribune and Ajit on 26.10.2017, intimating the allottees to take the possession of the allotted plots within the said period and various allottees have already taken possession. However, the complainant did not come forward to take the possession of her plot. It was further contended that the complainant committed due default by not paying the instalments as per the allotment letter. Thus, notices under Section 45 (1), 45(2) and 45(3) of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 were issued to her. The photographs of the site, along with certificate dated 16.03.2019 of Sub Divisional Engineer, PH-2, prove that all the basic amenities have been provided at site. Partial Completion Certificate dated 08.01.2019 issued by Chief Administrator, Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 PDA, Patiala also proves that all the basic amenities such as roads, public health service and electrical services have been completed on 30.04.2018, as per sanctioned layout plan. The case referred by the learned counsel for the complainant pertains to the some other project and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. First of all, I would like to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, on the ground that she purchased the plot, in question, for speculative purposes.

11. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties to prove that the complainant is indulging in sale/purchase of property for commercial purpose. Therefore, simple assertion in this regard in the reply of the opposite parties, without any cogent and convincing evidence in support thereof, is not sufficient to prove this fact. Honble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 STATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for earning profit. In the instant case also, as already discussed above, there is no evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant indulged in sale/purchase of properties or that she purchased the plot, in question, for further sale or for earning profits. Accordingly, the above said objection/contention of the opposite parties is rejected and the complainant is held to be consumer, under the Act.

12. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly, the complainant applied for allotment of 300 sq. yds. plot with the opposite parties and she was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 16.03.2015. Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 13.04.2015, Ex.C-2, was issued to her, in which the tentative price of the plot is mentioned as 21,60,000/- i.e. 7,200/- per sq.yd. Thereafter, she was issued allotment letter dated 19.08.2015, Ex.C-3, vide which plot No.275, measuring 300 sq.yds. was allotted to the complainant in PUDA Enclave, Nabha on free hold basis. As per Clause 3.1 of the allotment letter, payment of 5,40,000/- made by the complainant was adjusted towards initial 25% of the sale price of the plot. As per Clause 3.2 of Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 the allotment letter, the balance 75% amount i.e. 16,20,000/- was to be paid in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in 6 equated half yearly instalments along with interest, as per table given therein. The complainant paid another sum of 4,64,400/- to the opposite parties, vide demand draft dated 19.08.2016, Ex.C-4. Thus, a total sum of 10,04,000/- stood deposited towards the price of the plot.

13. As per Clause 6(i) of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be delivered after completion of developments works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, whichever was earlier. However, the opposite parties failed to develop the site and to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period i.e. upto 19.02.2017.

14. To prove that the non-completion of development works at the site of the opposite parties, the complainant availed the services of Er. H.G. Ahuluwalia, B.Sc. (Engg.) Civil, to visit the spot and to report regarding the development at the site. He visited the site on 08.12.2018 and after thorough inspection submitted his detailed report dated 13.12.2018, Ex.C-5, to the effect that the site of PUDA Enclave Nabha, as on 08.12.2018 was not complete and the basic amenities were also not provided/completed; as a result of which the site was not habitable. He gave his pointwise report as under: Feature/Amenity Present Status

1. Covering Nala A per the brochure issued at the time of booking, the Nala passing through the PUDA Enclave was to be covered. Till date work has not been started due to which Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 work of water supply line sewerage system, road work are incomplete. Nobody can live in that area due to unhygienic condition and foul smell from Nala.

2. Gate & Boundary Wall around the colony The work of building the boundary wall around the entire colony is complete and no main entry gates have been constructed and approaches from the roads are incomplete.

3. Internal Roads 100 wide internal Road work as per approved layout plan is incomplete due to non-completion of covered Nala work.

4. Demarcation of Plots None of the plots are demarcated in any manner whatsoever, hence it is impossible to even decipher as to where the allottees plot is situated.

5. Street Lighting The electric street lighting poles are found installed but they are not connected to the Power Grid nor have they been installed with LED Lamps.

6. Water Supply Lines The Water Supply Lines have been laid but not yet connected to the Water Supply System. The Water Supply System including the Water Storage Tank and Bore Well have been completed, however there is no arrangement to fill the storage tanks and to supply water to the allottees. No electric connection is available to the bore well. The Water Supply System is incomplete.

7. Electricity Supply System Although some transformers have already been erected on site, but they are not energized and there is no Sub Station constructed till date, hence electric supply system is incomplete till date.

8. Sewerage Disposal Lines/Sewerage Treatment Plant The Sewerage Disposal Lines have been laid in the colony and civil works for Sewerage Treatment Plan is almost complete, but till date no machinery for sewerage treatment has been installed in the buildings constructed for this purpose. Hence, the entire sewerage system of the colony is defunct. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019

9. Park sites inside the colony Although there are numerous park sites, promised by PUDA. However, none were found demarcated or developed.

10. Commercial shops/sites inside the colony Although there are numerous clusters of commercial shops/sites promised by PUDA. However, none were demarcated or developed.

11. Dispensary Although there is a dispensary site in the colony promised by PUDA, however it was not found demarcated or developed. Perusal of above said report of the Civil Engineer proves that the developments works, as detailed therein, have not been completed in the project of the opposite parties and the site is not habitable. To prove the above said shortcomings and defects in the colony of the opposite parties, as reported in the above said report, the Civil Engineer also produced photographs of the site.

15. The opposite parties have produced on record certificate dated 16.03.2019, along with photographs and Partial Completion Certificate dated 08.01.2019 Ex.R-8 (colly.). As per this certificate, photographs of the completed public health works of PUDA Enclave site, Nabha, were taken by Sub Divisional Engineer (PH-2), PDA, Patiala along with concerned Junior Engineer Sh. Gurpreet Singh on 16.03.2019. However, there is no pointwise rebuttal to the detailed report dated 13.12.2018, Ex.C-5, of Er. H.G. Ahluwalia, B.Sc. (Engg.) Civil, as discussed above. Mere production of photographs and a four line certificate is not sufficient to rebut the detailed report Ex.C-5 and to prove that the project is complete in all respects. Even as per Partial Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 Completion Certificate dated 08.01.2019, which was issued as per report of S.E., P.D.A., following works are yet to be completed:

i) Development of green belts and parks; ii) Development of balance area of site as per future planning; iii) Laying of final topping on road; iv) Development of commercial pockets as per planning which will be finalized in future;

v) Construction of STP with necessary machinery; It is also a fact that no Completion Certificate, as envisaged by Section

14 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, has been produced on record by the opposite parties to prove that the site/plot allotted to the complainant is developed in all respects and is habitable. Even no measurement books of the site have been produced by them on record. Furthermore, the opposite parties, in their reply, have not alleged that the above said report of the Civil Engineer produced by the complainant is wrong or not as per the actual status of the site. In the absence of Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority regarding completion of development works in the colony developed by the opposite parties, it cannot be proved that the project/plot, in question, has been fully developed and is fit for human habitation. Since the project of the opposite parties was not completed till the filing of the complaint, then the plea of the opposite parties that the complainant failed to pay the balance sale consideration, despite issuance of letter/notices, Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-6, is not justified. The complainant was justified in withholding the payment Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 of remaining sale consideration of the plot, keeping in view of the non- completion of development works even after four years of the allotment of the plot.

16. It would also be appropriate to refer the Objects and Functions given under Section 28 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995; which are reproduced as under:

28. Objects and Functions of the Authority:- (1) The objects of the Authority shall be to promote and secure better planning and development of any area of the State and for that purpose the Authority shall have the powers to acquire by way of purchase, transfer, ex-change or gift or to hold, manage, plan, develop and mortgage or otherwise dispose of land or other property or to carry out itself or in collaboration with any other agency or through any other agency on its behalf, building, engineering, mining and other operations to execute work in connection with supply of water, disposal of sewerage, control of pollution and other services and amenities and generally to do anything with the prior approval or on direction of the State Government, for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Authority itself or in collaboration with any other agency or through any other agency on its behalf,-

(i) if so required by the State Government or the Board, take up the works in connection with the preparation and implementation of Regional Plans, Master Plans and New Township Plans and town improvement schemes;

(ii) undertake the work relating to the amenities and services to be provided in the urban areas, urban estates, promotion of urban development as well as construction of houses;

(iii) promote research, development of new techniques of planning, land development and house construction and manufacture of building material;

(iv) promote companies, association and other bodies for carrying out the purposes of the Act ; and

(v) perform any other function which are supplemental, incidental or consequential to any of the functions referred to in this sub-section or which may be prescribed. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 Perusal of the above said Objects and Functions shows that in pursuance of the same, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) has been floating Schemes for setting up developed colonies for general public in various cities in Punjab. Before undertaking such a Scheme, it has to prepare a proper Scheme, in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 and presumption is that the Scheme must have been framed, keeping in view the provisions of the said Act. All the financial implications and other things must have been taken care of by PUDA. After considering the pros and cons, the Scheme is supposed to have been launched by the development authority, being a public authority. Taking the same into consideration, the applicant applies for allotment of a plot in such a Scheme, specifically when such a Scheme is launched by the Government Authority for the welfare of the general public. The said Scheme was launched by the opposite parties for the welfare of the general public, so that needy person can have his/her own house, if he/she or his/her spouse or other dependents were not having any house. Keeping in view all these terms and conditions, complainant purchased the plot from the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties failed to develop the plot and to deliver its possession, along with promised facilities within the stipulated period, as per terms and conditions of the LoI and the Allotment Letter, along with Completion/Occupation Certificate. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019

17. Identical issue, pertaining to the similar scheme PUDA Enclave (Sugar Mill Site), Jagraon of PUDA has already been decided by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.883 of 2017 (Aseem Goyal v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Ors.), decided on 01.06.2018, whereby refund of entire amount, deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties towards the price of the plot, was allowed, along with interest and compensation. It was held therein that the complainant cannot be made to wait for delivery of possession of the plot for an indefinite period and once the complainant had lost faith in the opposite parties with regard to development of the project and delivery of possession, he was very much within his rights to withhold further payments.

18. Similar issue arose before this Commission in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (now BDA) v. Veena Rani First Appeal No.440 of 2017, decided on 18.12.2017, along with bunch of 6 other similar cases whereby the appeals filed by the appellants/opposite parties were dismissed and the orders passed by the District Forum, allowing refund of entire amount deposited by the complainants, along with interest and compensation, were upheld.

19. Identical issue also arose before this Commission in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. v. Amrik Singh First Appeal No.1287 of 2015, decided on 15.11.2016, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties was dismissed, upholding the order of the District Forum, vide which refund of entire deposited of the complainant, along with interest was allowed. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 Against that order, the opposite parties approached the Honble National Commission, by way of Revision Petition No.500 of 2017 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. v. Amrik Singh); which was also dismissed, vide order dated 28.03.2017. In Para No.8 (relevant portion) of the above said judgment, the Honble National Commission held as follows:

8. No doubt, clause 12 of Letter of Intent do provide that the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the allottee after the completion of the development work at the site or within 18 months from the date of issue of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. It is also true that neither the development work has been completed as yet nor any allotment letter has been issued in favour of the complainant who deposited the demanded 15% of the consideration amount in furtherance of Letter of Intent. The question is does this mean that by providing the stipulation in clause 12, 21 &

22 of Letter of Intent, the opposite party can delay the delivery of possession of subject plot to the complainant for indefinite period?...................................

20. Similar dispute also arose before this Commission in First Appeal No.135 of 2016 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Darshana Devi), which was dismissed, vide order dated 21.11.2016, whereby the order of the District Forum, allowing refund of entire amount deposited by the complainant, along with interest, was upheld. Against that order, the opposite party filed Revision Petition No.499 of 2017 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Darshana Devi) before the Honble National Commission; which was also dismissed, vide order dated 28.03.2017, reported in III (2017) CPJ 134 (NC).

21. The matter did not end there and the opposite party approached the Honble Supreme Court against the said order passed Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 by the Honble National Commission, by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13240/2017 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Darshana Devi). The said Special Leave to Appeal filed by the opposite party was tagged with Special Leave to Appeal No.12438/2017 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Amrik Singh), which was filed against the above said order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Honble National Commission and both those Special Leave to Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file review petition, as per order dated 10.07.2017. The Revision Petition No.148 of 2017 titled as Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Darshana Devi filed by the opposite party was also dismissed by the Honble National Commission, vide order dated 17.08.2017.

22. In Usha Ranis case (supra) also, which was decided along with bunch of 7 other similar cases, similar dispute was involved and the opposite parties failed to complete the development works and to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant within the stipulated period and, thus, refund of the amount deposited, along with interest and compensation was awarded.

23. In view of the law laid down by the above noted authorities as well as in view of my above discussion, it stands proved that the opposite parties failed to complete the development works at the site and failed to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant, along with promised facilities within the stipulated period, along with Completion/Occupation Certificate. Accordingly, the complainant is Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 entitled to the refund of the entire amount deposited by her, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and suitable compensation, on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by her on account of the deficiency in service on the part o the opposite parties.

24. In view of my above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to refund the amount of 10,04,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization; and iii) to pay 11,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, including litigation expenses.

25. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT June 13, 2019. (Gurmeet S)