APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For Petitioner : Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate with Ms. Aastha Vashistha, Advocate For the Respondents in RP/2804/18, RP/2841/18, RP/2843 to 2846/18 : NEMO For the Respondent in RP/2842/2018 : Ms. Veena Rani (in person) PRONOUNCED ON: 24 January 2020th ORDER PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER This Order shall dispose of seven revision petitions arising against the common impugned Order of the State Commission Punjab passed on 18.12.2017 in the appeals filed by the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (now BDA), Bathinda ( hereinafter referred as PUDA- OP). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for a plot in the scheme launched by the PUDA for free hold residential plots in PUDA Enclave at Budhlada. The complainants initially deposited the earnest money and subsequently 15% of the total value of the plot was paid after being successful in the draw of lots and after receiving the letter of intent. The possession was to be handed over after the completion of development work at the site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever was earlier. PUDA issued a letter of intent dated 26.02.2013 to the each complainant. The OP neither developed any plot nor delivered the possession to the complainants. Being aggrieved the seven complainants filed separate complaints before the District Forum, Mansa. The District Forum after considering the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and3. directed to refund the amount received by the OP from the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of payment, and also directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and another Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed seven separate first appeal4. before the State Commission. All the appeals are dismissed by the State Commission by a common order dated 18.12.2017. and the Order of the District Forum was affirmed. Hence, these seven revision petitions filed by the OP- PUDA before this Commission. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and None present for the respondents5. except the respondent Ms.Veena Rani (in RP/2846/2018). Perused the entire material on record. Admittedly as per the terms of PUDA the seven complainants have paid the earnest money as6. per the area of the plot applied for. They have also paid the stipulated amount i.e. 15% of the total cost as per the PUDA stipulation. The details of payment are stated as below: R.P. No. Name of theComplainant A r e a applied for (sq. yard) 10% earnest money initially deposited 15% further a m o u n t deposited Total amount deposited 2804/2018 Darshan Kumar 200 Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- 2841/2018 Rajiv Kumar 100 Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- 2842/2018 Veena Rani 200 Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- 2843/2018 Vinod KumarGarg 200 Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- 2844/2018 Balvir Singh 150 Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- 2845/2018 Jivan Kumar 150 Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 1,35,000/- Rs. 2,25,000/- 2846/2018 Raj Kumar 200 Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- We note the State Commission categorically made the following observations:7.
25. - - - 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 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. On perusal of the record, prima-facie it is the case of deficiency of service by the OP.8. Non-commencement of development work appears to be a casual approach of the PUDA and unnecessarily harassment to the poor consumers. Even after the expiry of four years, no development work has been started at the site. Honble Supreme Court has held in many cases that if there is a delay in possession, the allottee or consumer is entitled for refund with a reasonable interest. In , II (2018) CPJ 1 (SC), Honble9. Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. v. Trevor D Lima & Ors Supreme Court held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him , and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, alongwith compensation. Similarly, in , II 2007 CPJ 17 (SC), Honble Supreme Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to refund with reasonable interest from the date of payment till the date of refund. Public authorities cannot frisk with the hard- earned money of consumers. Based on the foregoing discussions, all the revision petitions are dismissed with a stern advise of10. caution to the OP- Authority through imposition of cost of Rs. 50,000/- in each case out of which Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the complainants and the remaining Rs. 25,000/- shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum within four weeks from today. Per Honble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member The learned Counsel for the Revisionist Development Authority (PUDA, now BDA) was heard.11. The Complainant in Revision Petition No. 2842 of 2018, who was present in person, was heard. None was present for the Complainants in the other 06 Revision Petitions. The record was perused, including the Orders (07 nos.) dated 10.03.2017 of the District Forum,inter alia the impugned Order dated 18.12.2017 of the State Commission and the Memoranda of Petition in all the
07 Revision Petitions. The short point involved here is that the Complainants deposited earnest money and made further12. deposits with the Development Authority for residential plots. The plots were not developed within the assured period, or within a reasonable period thence. The District Forum, vide its individual Orders (07 nos.) dated 10.03.2017, ordered refund of the13. respective deposited amount(s) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization along with compensation of Rs. 7,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 3,000/-, in each case. The Development Authority filed 07 Appeals under Section 15 of the Act 1986 before the State Commission, challenging the said 07 individual Orders dated 10.03.2017 of the District Forum. The State Commission, vide a common Order dated 18.12.2017, dismissed the said 07 Appeals and affirmed the Orders (07 nos.) of the District Forum. The Development Authority filed the instant 07 Revision Petitions before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986, one each in respect of each of the 07 Complaint Cases, challenging the said Order dated 18.12.2017 of the State Commission. Similar facts and same questions of law are involved in all these 07 Revision Petitions.14. As such, the 07 Revision Petitions are being disposed of vide a common Order. We may observe here that it was the prime responsibility of the Development Authority to ensure15. that it was in a position to develop the plots within the assured period and in all contingencies within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote such period as a reasonable man would not normally agitate). Planning, Execution and Completion were its responsibility, and not of the Consumer(s). (Normal) impediments or problems that arise in Planning, Execution and Completion were its responsibility, and not of the Consumer(s). Specifically, availability of land (/ acquisition of land), as well as all approvals from the concerned Government / Development / Municipal authorities, as and when due, being fundamental basic requirements of a construction / development Project, were decidedly the Development Authoritys primary responsibilities, and not of the Consumer(s). Cost and Time overruns were its responsibility, and not of the Consumer(s). Non-fulfilment of its overall responsibilities of Project Planning, Execution and Completion can not be and are not grounds for condoning or overlooking delay in completion and failure to develop the plots within the assured period. Managerial or administrative contingencies / exigencies etc., can, but, not be nebulously and irrationally contended and argued for anything and everything related to the Development Authoritys responsibilities for completion of the Project without Cost or Time overruns. It is well evinced that the subject plots were not developed within the assured period or within a16. reasonable period thence. In such situation, the District Forum directed for refund of the deposited amount(s) with interest (@ 9% p.a.) along with compensation (Rs.7,000/-) and cost of litigation (Rs. 3,000/-), in each case. We find the award made by the District Forum to be just and equitable. The State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum.17. We find the impugned Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. Within the ambit and scope of Section 21(b), we find no crucial error in appreciating the evidence by18. the two Fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision.de novo We find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may require interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b). The Development Authority, after its out-and-out deficiency in service, clearly falling within19. Section 2 (1) (g) & (o) of the Act 1986, agitated, unsuccessfully, in one, then two, and now three, Consumer Protection Fora, needlessly wasting public time and monies. All this is not viewed favourably.20. The Revision Petitions, being patently misconceived and totally bereft of merit, are dismissed, with21. stern advice of caution to the Development Authority by imposition of cost of Rs. 50,000/- in each case, out of which Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant(s) in each case and Rs. 25,000/- shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum in each case, within a period of four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order. The Development Authority through its Chief Executive is further advised to inculcate accountability and responsibility and to imbibe systemic improvements, rather than attempting to justify deficient service, mismanagement and maladministration, and wasting public time and monies in meritless litigation. Needless to add, the protection from execution, provided vide the Order dated 30.05.2019, does not22. survive. In case of failure or omission in compliance, the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law. A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Chief Executive of the Revisionist23. Development Authority and to the Complainants in each case, within seven days of its pronouncement. ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER