Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties (developers/authority) seeking delivery of possession of an allotted residential plot in the IT City, Mohali scheme, interest for delayed delivery, compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The complainant applied for a 256 sq.yds. plot in Category-B (Scheduled Caste/Tribe) on 08.08.2016, paid application/booking amounts and, subsequently, paid instalments totaling Rs. 50,56,202/-, availing a 5% rebate as per the payment plan. A Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 13/18.01.2017 was issued to the complainant; Clause 15 of the LoI stipulated that physical possession should be delivered within one year of the LoI.

Despite payment of the sale consideration, the complainant did not receive possession within the stipulated period and sent a representation dated 01.04.2019 requesting delivery of possession. The opposite parties replied, raising preliminary objections (that the complainant is not a "consumer" and that disputes are subject to arbitration) and denying deficiency in service, asserting non-availability of environmental clearance for the relevant pocket. The complainant and the opposite parties filed evidence: the complainant filed affidavits and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and later Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11 (allowed on record by Misc. Application No.1638 of 2019). The opposite parties filed an affidavit of their Estate Officer and public notices Ex.OP-1 (colly.).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the complainant qualifies as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the allotment/purchase of the plot or whether the purchase was for speculative/commercial purposes excluding him from the Act's protection.
  2. Whether the presence of an arbitration clause (Clause 26 of the LoI) ousts the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate the dispute.
  3. Whether the opposite parties' failure to deliver possession within the stipulated period (and lack of completion/occupation certificate) constitutes deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
  4. What reliefs and compensation, if any, the complainant is entitled to for delayed delivery of possession and associated mental agony/litigation expenses.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

  • Opposite parties failed to complete development works and deliver possession within the period stipulated in Clause 15 of the LoI despite receiving full sale consideration.
  • No development activity had been carried out at the site and no completion/occupation certificate has been produced.
  • Complainant is residing in rented accommodation and paying Rs.16,000 per month; delayed possession has caused financial burden and mental harassment.
  • The complainant sought delivery of possession, interest/compensation for delay, rent reimbursement, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs.

Opposite Parties' Arguments

  • There is no deficiency in service; the allotment could not be finalized because environmental clearance for the specific pocket was not available.
  • The complainant allegedly purchased the plot for speculative/commercial purposes and therefore does not fall within the definition of "consumer".
  • Disputed and complicated questions of law and fact exist which are not suitable for summary proceedings before the Commission.
  • Clause 26 of the LoI provides for resolution by arbitration (Chief Administrator, GMADA), and disputes should be referred to the arbitrator.
  • The opposite parties asserted they had carried out development generally and had issued allotment letters for other plot sizes and that public notices would be / had been issued regarding further draws after development.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS, First Appeal No.1358 of 2016 (decided 29.11.2016) Applied for the proposition that mere booking/allotment does not establish that a purchaser intended the plot for commercial/speculative purposes; absence of cogent evidence of speculative intent supports classification as a consumer. The court relied on this decision to reject the opposite parties' assertion that the complainant was not a consumer, noting lack of evidence that the complainant purchased for commercial purposes.
KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA STATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS, Consumer Case No.137 of 2010 (decided 12.02.2015) Earlier authority used to support that booking of plots is not by itself evidence of commercial/speculative intent; purchasers in similar circumstances held to be consumers. Used by the court, through reliance cited in the IREO decision, to reinforce that absent cogent evidence of speculative intent, complainant is a consumer entitled to protection.
Beatty Tony v. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd., III (2015) CPJ 63 (NC) Held that mere booking of a plot cannot be presumed to be for commercial purposes and such booking does not preclude classification as a consumer. The court cited this authority to support the conclusion that the complainant should be treated as a consumer where no evidence of speculative intent was produced by the opposite parties.
Aftab Singh v. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 (Larger Bench order dated 13.07.2017) Held that an arbitration clause in agreements between consumers and builders does not necessarily oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to adjudicate disputes, notwithstanding amendments to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The court relied on this Larger Bench decision to reject the opposite parties' contention that Clause 26 (arbitration) barred the Commission's jurisdiction. The decision was noted as upheld by dismissal of subsequent appeals.
M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. v. Aftab Singh, Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017 (order dated 13.02.2018) and associated Review Petitions (dismissed) Demonstrated that the Apex Court dismissed appeals against the Larger Bench's ruling, and review petitions were also dismissed, reinforcing that arbitration clauses do not automatically preclude Consumer Fora jurisdiction. The court referenced the dismissal of these appeals and review petitions to confirm that the Aftab Singh Larger Bench ruling remains authoritative for the proposition that arbitration clauses do not oust consumer fora jurisdiction.
Revision Petition No.500 of 2017 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. v. Amrik Singh) — Order dated 28.03.2017 In similar circumstances, held that possession must be delivered and that delayed delivery warrants compensation; addressed whether clauses permitting delay could be used to indefinitely postpone possession. The court cited the National Commission's reasoning in this revision petition to support entitlement of the complainant to delivery of possession and award of compensation (the opinion references an extract of Para No.8 and applies the same remedial approach).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in stages, addressing preliminary objections first and then the merits:

  1. On procedural matters, Misc. Application No.1638 of 2019 seeking to place documents Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11 and affidavit Ex.C-12 on record was allowed and those documents were admitted.
  2. Consumer-status objection: The opposite parties contended the complainant was not a consumer because the purchase was for speculative/commercial purposes. The court observed that the opposite parties produced no cogent evidence to substantiate the allegation of speculative intent. The complainant's property return for 2018-19 showed the allotted plot was the only property in his name, and other land belonged to his wife — facts the court found consistent with a personal acquisition. Relying on earlier National Commission decisions (as cited), the court held that mere booking/allotment is not determinative of commercial intent and therefore rejected the objection and held the complainant to be a "consumer" under the Act.
  3. Arbitration-clause objection: The opposite parties relied on Clause 26 of the LoI (arbitration before Chief Administrator, GMADA). The court referred to the Larger Bench decision in Aftab Singh (Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015) and noted that subsequent challenges in the Apex Court had been dismissed; accordingly, the court concluded that an arbitration clause does not preclude the Consumer Forum's jurisdiction in such cases and rejected the arbitration objection.
  4. Merits — failure to deliver possession / deficiency in service: The court recited undisputed facts — LoI dated 13/18.01.2017, obligation to deliver possession within one year (Clause 15), and payment of 95% sale price by the complainant with full instalments paid. The opposite parties' claim that environmental clearance for the pocket was not available was examined and found contradicted by documents on record: an Environment Clearance dated 30.08.2014 (Ex.C-10) and a Revised Environmental Clearance dated 28.03.2019 (Ex.C-11). Although these clearances were subject to conditions, the opposite parties produced no evidence showing full compliance with those conditions or completion of development works.
  5. The court noted absence of any Completion/Occupation Certificate under Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, which would indicate completion of the scheme/plot. Given the absence of evidence that development work was complete and of any completion certificate, the court held that the opposite parties' failure to deliver possession amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
  6. The court applied principles applicable to public authorities (citing Section 28 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995) and the settled principle of reasonableness — public authorities must act fairly, not arbitrarily. In line with prior National Commission decisions (including Revision Petition No.500/2017), the court concluded that the complainant was entitled to delivery of possession along with basic amenities and a completion/occupation certificate, and that delayed delivery warranted compensation.
  7. On quantum: The court determined compensation for delay at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from the stipulated date for delivery of possession (13/18.01.2018) until actual physical delivery. The court declined to separately order rent reimbursement because an award of compensation for delay would effectively address that financial burden. The court also directed a composite amount for litigation expenses and compensation for mental harassment.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The complaint was allowed. The court issued the following directions:

  • To deliver possession of the plot allotted to the complainant, complete in all respects, along with all agreed basic amenities and a Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority, and to execute the Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant.
  • To pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant, with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession (13/18.01.2018) until actual and physical delivery of the plot.
  • To pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.
  • The opposite parties were directed to comply with the order within 60 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Implications: The direct effects are (a) mandatory delivery of possession and documentation in favour of the complainant, (b) monetary compensation at 12% on amounts deposited for the period of delay, and (c) payment of Rs.55,000 as composite litigation expenses/compensation. The opinion does not set out broader policy changes beyond these remedial directions; its reasoning relies on existing National Commission authorities to reject arbitration and consumer-status objections and applies established principles on deficiency in service and remedies. No new precedent-creating doctrine beyond the application of cited authorities is articulated in the text of the opinion.

Bench: JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL (President) and RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL (Member). Date of order: September 30, 2019.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Parmjit Singh v. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority

    2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

    3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:- For the complainant : Sh. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate For the opposite parties: Sh. Anuj Kohli, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT : Misc. Application No.1638 of 2019 By way of this application, the complainant wants to produce on record documents Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11 and his affidavit Ex.C-12; which are relevant and necessary for just decision of the Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 complaint. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the documents annexed therewith are ordered to be taken on record. Main Case 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 deliver possession of the plot, as per allotment letter dated 18.01.2017, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 18% for delayed period till delivery of actual possession, as early as possible, as per Clause-15 of the Letter of Intent; ii) to pay the amount of rent, which is actually paid by the complainant to the landlord in whose premises he is now staying, at the rate of 16,000/- per month from 17.01.2018 till delivery of possession of the plot, along with interest at the rate of 18%; iii) to pay compensation of 10,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and iv) to pay cost of 1,00,000/- for dragging the complainant into unnecessary litigation. Facts of the Complaint

    2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the opposite parties developed a residential colony called IT City, Mohali, situated in SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, having 750 residential plots. The Scheme was opened on 18.07.2016 and closed on 19.08.2016, with the promise and advantage of colony in the vicinity of International Airport, having excellent connectivity, spread over 1685 acres, world class Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 infrastructure, convenient payment plan and possession within one year. Believing the tall claims made by the opposite parties, the complainant applied for allotment of residential plot, measuring 256 sq.yds. in Category-B under Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe Category on 08.08.2016, by paying 5,13,320/-, vide Bank Draft bearing No.345925 dated 08.08.2016, and 2,000/- as application fee in favour of Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar, vide Application Form No.10601. The complainant retired from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 30.11.2018 and resided in rented accommodation in Sector-91, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and paid 16,000/- per month as rent from his account through netbanking. The complainant was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 21.09.2016, vide Serial No.141, and he opted for payment plan with 5% rebate and paid all the due instalments in time, as per Clause 5(1) and 5 (2) , as per Property Ledger, Ex.C-4. Thus, he paid a total sum of 50,56,202/- and availed 5% rebate as per terms and conditions of GMADA. The opposite parties issued Letter of Intent (in short, LoI) dated 13.01.2017/18.01.2017 for allotment of plot measuring 256.66 sq.yds. to the complainant. As per Clause-15 of the LoI, physical possession of the plot was to be handed over within a period of one year from the date of issuance of LoI i.e. 18.01.2017. However, they failed to do so within that period, despite repeated requests and visits of the complainant. Therefore, he sent a detailed representation dated 01.04.2019, requesting the opposite parties to handover possession of the plot, as early as possible, because he was in dire need of Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 residential house for his personal use only. However, all in vain. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. 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 there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as defined in the Act, as he purchased the plot for speculative purpose. Disputed and complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint, which cannot be decided in summary proceedings. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. The opposite parties have duly carried out the development of IT City and allotment letters of plots of different sizes have been issued to the allottees on different dates. However, the environmental clearance for the pocket, where the plots of 256.66 sq.yds. area to be developed, has not been issued by the concerned department. Thus, the allotment letters for that are could not be issued till the date of filing of the reply. However, the clearance has been received from the committee and the opposite parties have already issued public notice in newspapers informing the public/allottees that the draw of said plot would be carried out after development within next six months. It was further objected that as per Clause-26 of the LoI, the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to independent Arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator, GMADA. On merits, issuance of LoI to the complainant for allotment of plot measuring Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 256.66 sq.yds. and payment of the amount, as mentioned in the complaint, was admitted. Retirement of the complainant from PSPCL and his living on rent were denied for want of knowledge. It was further denied that the complainant submitted detailed representation dated 01.04.2019, as no such representation is available in the official record of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that there is no deficiency in service 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 Evidence of the Parties

    4. To prove his claim, the complainant, along with the complaint, filed his own affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. He also produced on record documents Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11 and his affidavit, along with application No.1638 of 2019.

    5. The opposite parties, along with their reply, filed self attested affidavit of Sh. Rohit Gupta, Estate Officer (Plots) and public notices Ex.OP-1 (colly.). Contentions of the Parties

    6. We 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 have failed to complete the development works at the site as well as deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per terms and conditions of the LoI, despite receipt of entire sale Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 consideration from the complainant. No development activity has been carried out at the site. The complainant is living on rent by paying 16,000/- per month and due to delay in delivery of possession, he is deprived of raising construction his own house over the plot, in question; putting extra financial burden on him. He visited the opposite parties many times and also sent detailed representation dated 01.04.2019, requesting the opposite parties to handover possession of the plot, as early as possible, but without any result. There is grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and, as such, the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint.

    8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the opposite parties have duly carried out the development in the said scheme and allotment letters of plots of different sizes have been issued to the allottees. However, the allotment letter to the complainant and other allottees could not be issued for want of environmental clearance for the pocket, where the plots of 256.66 sq.yds. are to be developed. After receipt of clearance from the committee, the opposite parties have already issued public notice, Ex.OP-1 in newspapers informing the public/allottees that the draw of said plot would be carried out after development. It was further contended that as per Clause-26 of the LoI, the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to independent Arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator, GMADA. The complainant does not fall under definition of consumer, as purchased the plot for commercial purposes. There is Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions

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

    10. Firstly, we would like to dispose of preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties in their reply that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in the Act, on the ground that he purchased the flat 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. The complainant has produced on record his property return for the year 2018-19, from which it is clear that except the plot, in question, no other property is in his name, whereas the other land of 6.4 Kanal is in the name of his wife. From this fact, it is clear that the plot, in question, was purchased by the complainant for his personal use and not for any commercial activity. 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 STATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing 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. The Honble National Commission in III (2015) CPJ 63 (NC) Beatty Tony versus Prestige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd., also held that merely on booking of the plot it cannot be presumed that it is booked for commercial purpose and the complainant was considered as a consumer. 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 he 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. So far as the other objection of the opposite parties that as per Arbitration Clause-26 of the LoI, the matter between the parties is liable to be resolved through arbitration, is concerned, it is relevant to mention here that the Larger Bench of the Honble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as Aftab Singh v. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr., also held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 kind of Agreements between the Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh) filed against the said order of the Honble National Commission has also been dismissed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017 filed against the above said order dated 13.02.2018 was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.12.2018. Consequently, the existence of an Arbitration Clause in the LoI is not a bar to resolve this dispute by this Commission. Accordingly, the said objection of the opposite parties is also rejected.

    13. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly, the opposite parties launched scheme for allotment of 750 residential plots under the name and style of IT City at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The complainant applied for allotment of 256 sq.yds. plot in that scheme, by paying application money of 5,13,320/-, vide acknowledgement of Form No.10601, Ex.C-2. Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 13/18.01.2017, Ex.C-5, was issued to him, regarding allotment of plot measuring 256.66 sq.yds. under Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe category, at the tentative price at the rate of 20,000/- per sq.yd. He opted for payment plan with 5% rebate and paid all the due instalments in time i.e. total sum of 50,56,202/-, as per Property Ledger, Ex.C-4, and availed 5% rebate as per terms and conditions of GMADA. Possession of the plot Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 was to be delivered within a period of one year from the date of issuance of LoI, as per Clause-15 thereof. However, they failed to deliver the possession within that period.

    14. The opposite parties pleaded in their reply that the allotment letter to the complainant and other allottees could not be issued for want of environmental clearance for the pocket, where the plots of 256.66 sq.yds. are to be developed and after receipt of clearance from the committee, the opposite parties have already issued public notice, Ex.OP-1 in newspapers informing the public/allottees that the draw of said plot would be carried out after development. However, it needs to be noticed that the opposite parties have not mentioned the date on which the said notice was got published and in which newspaper.

    15. Be that as it may, the plea of the opposite parties that for want of environmental clearance they could not issue allotment letter to the complainant and others, is falsified from the Environment Clearance issued to them by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIA), Punjab, vide letter dated 30.08.2014, Ex.C-10. Further, Revised Environmental Clearance was also issued to the opposite parties by SLEIA, vide letter dated 28.03.2019, Ex.C-

    11. No doubt, these clearances were given, subject to compliance of terms and certain conditions mentioned therein and there is no evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that they have complied with those terms and conditions in letter and spirit. The fact remains that the opposite parties failed to issue allotment letter to the Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 complainant despite receiving entire sale price of the plot, that too on false and untenable ground, as discussed above.

    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. Perusal of the above said Objects and Functions shows that in pursuance of the same, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 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. It also puts various types of riders, such as the applicant or his spouse or his minor child must not be having any residential plot in the area. Be that as it may, we are not going to deal with the same, but reference has been made just to indicate that the said Scheme was launched by the opposite parties for the welfare of the general public, so that needy person can have his 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, the complainant might have applied for allotment of the plot, for which he had paid 95% sale price, as per terms and conditions of the LoI. The stipulated period for delivery of possession had already expired on 13/18.01.2018. However, there is no evidence on record from the side of the opposite parties to prove that the development works have been Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 completed at the site. It also needs to be emphasized that no Completion/ Occupation Certificate, as envisaged under Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, has been produced by the opposite parties to show that the scheme/plot is complete in all respects. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

    17. The principle of reasonableness is a settled principle of law and a public authority, discharging public duties/functions, must act in public interest and its action should not be arbitrary or unfair. The wider meaning is to be given to the concept of equality, which requires that every action must be reasonable and must not be arbitrary or opposed to the public interest. Therefore, it is not open to PUDA/GMADA to make a promise to the applicants/successful allottees for allotment of plots in disregard to the provisions of advertisement and allotment, which always refer to the reasonable period and the doctrine of equality. The process of launching such Schemes is a process of discernment. The literal meaning of the words rarely provides a clear and unequivocal answer. The intention of a public authority must therefore be discerned by using a good faith approach not only to the words at issue, but also to the context, history, object and purpose of the Scheme, as a whole. In the present case, the LoI was issued on 13/18.01.2017, wherein no plot number was mentioned. It is also a matter of fact that no allotment letter has been issued to the complainant by the opposite parties, despite receipt of 95% sale price of the plot from the complainant. Honble National Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 Commission in similar circumstances in Revision Petition No.500 of 2017 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr.

    v. Amrik Singh); which was dismissed, vide order dated 28.03.2017, held in Para No.8 (relevant portion) 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?.......... .........................

    18. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to delivery of possession of the plot allotted to him, complete in all respects, along with all the agreed basic amenities and Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority. The opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession i.e. 13/18.01.2018 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the plot. For the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, he is also required to be suitably compensated. So far as the prayer of the complainant regarding rent charges is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that there is no such contract between the parties to pay rent charges. However, since the compensation for delay in delivery of Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 possession is going to be awarded, therefore, the same will take care of that prayer of the complainant.

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

    i) to deliver possession of the plot allotted to the complainant, complete in all respects, along with all the agreed basic amenities and Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority and to execute Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant; ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession i.e. 13/18.01.2018 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the plot, ordered above; and iii) to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of 55,000/-.

    20. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 60 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER September 30, 2019. (Gurmeet S)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Parmjit Singh v. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority
    (Sep 30, 2019)