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

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 758 of 2019 under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking (a) refund of Rs.14,92,273/- with interest at 18% per annum, (b) Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for financial risk, hardship, mental agony and harassment, (c) Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses, and (d) any other relief deemed fit.

Relevant factual chronology as set out in the complaint and record:

  • 27.09.2012: Opposite party (PUDA) launched a scheme for allotment of freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave, Budhlada; applications with 10% earnest money invited.
  • Complainant applied for a 256.67 sq. yards plot (application No.3192) and paid Rs.1,54,000/- as earnest money.
  • 15.01.2013: Draw of lots — complainant successful; Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 issued.
  • Complainant paid 15% amount (Rs.2,31,003/-) and Rs.10,000/- as penal interest for delayed payment; later paid Rs.10,97,270/- on 16.12.2016 after availing 5% rebate on balance.
  • 18.10.2016: Allotment letter issued allotting Plot No.922 (256.57 sq. yards); 25% paid amount adjusted and balance demand of Rs.11,55,015/- raised.
  • Clause 4 of the allotment letter provided that possession would be handed over after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the allotment letter, whichever is earlier.
  • 08.02.2018: Opposite party issued re-allotment letter stating Plot No.93 allotted to complainant instead of Plot No.922 (citing "technical reasons") and mentioning possession could be taken by 01.03.2018; letter stated non-appearance would be deemed as possession taken.
  • Complainant alleges development works and basic amenities (water, sewerage, main gate, boundary wall) were not provided and that possession was not delivered even after more than six years; photographs dated 22.09.2019 and a CD were placed on record by complainant.
  • Opposite party filed a written statement raising preliminary objections and denying many averments; the matter proceeded before the Commission and was decided by order dated 20 February 2020.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the complainant qualifies as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 given the "as is where basis" contention by the opposite party.
  2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation or constitutes a continuous cause of action.
  3. Whether an arbitration clause in the Letter of Intent ousts the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate the dispute.
  4. Whether there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite party in failing to provide possession and basic amenities and in re-allotting the plot without consent.
  5. What reliefs (refund, interest, compensation, litigation expenses) the complainant is entitled to if the Commission finds in his favour.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

  • Complainant applied for allotment, was successful in draw of lots and issued Letter of Intent; he paid earnest money, 15% payment and later lump-sum balance after obtaining 5% rebate.
  • Possession was to be delivered after development works or within 18 months, but possession was not delivered within the stipulated period.
  • Opposite party re-allotted a different plot (No.93) without prior notice or consent and without completing basic amenities; despite requests possession was not handed over.
  • Pleads deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; seeks refund, interest and compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
  • Placed documentary evidence: Letter of Intent (Ex.C-1), various receipts (Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4, Ex.C-8), Allotment Letter (Ex.C-5), permission to mortgage (Ex.C-6), demand draft (Ex.C-7), re-allotment letter (Ex.C-9), photographs (Ex.C-10) and CD (Ex.C-11).

Opposite Party's Arguments

  • Raised preliminary objections: the plot was allotted on "as is where basis", therefore the complainant is not a "consumer" under Section 2 of the Act.
  • Contended that development works at site are complete and there was no deficiency in service; opposite party denied many averments of the complainant.
  • Invoked Clause 20 of the Letter of Intent providing for sole arbitration by the Chief Administrator, PUDA, and argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction.
  • Argued that the complaint is barred by limitation because re-allotment was issued on 08.02.2018 and complaint was filed about one and a half years later.
  • Submitted that the dispute involves intricate questions of law and fact inappropriate for summary proceedings before the Consumer Forum.
  • Denied facts and requested dismissal of the complaint.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, 2002 (6) SCC 635 Supports that State Commission and District Forum are headed by experienced judicial officers and are competent to decide consumer disputes; not every case is unsuitable for Consumer Fora. Cited to reject the opposite party's contention that the complaint involves such intricate questions of law and fact that it cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum.
Aftab Singh v. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 (National Commission, decided 13.07.2017) and subsequent Civil Appeal nos.23512-23513 of 2017 (EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. v. Aftab Singh) — appeal dismissed by Apex Court order dated 13.02.2018 Holds that an arbitration clause in agreements of this kind between complainants and a builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum, notwithstanding amendments to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Relied upon to repulse the opposite party's submission that the existence of an arbitration clause ousted the Commission's jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
National Seeds Corporation Limited v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr., 2012 (2) CLT 382/383 Supports the proposition that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides consumers an additional remedy and does not estop them from choosing the forum of their choice. Cited, along with Fair Air Engineers, to support the view that Section 3 of the C.P. Act confers an additional remedy and thus arbitration clause cannot bar the Consumer Forum.
Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N. K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385 Used to support the proposition that consumers have an additional remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and can choose to approach consumer fora. Applied to reinforce that the presence of an arbitration clause does not deprive the complainant of the right to approach the Consumer Forum.
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. v. Amrik Singh, First Appeal No.1287 of 2015 (decided 15.11.2016) and Revision Petition No.500 of 2017 (National Commission) — dismissed (order dated 28.03.2017) Previous instance where identical issue (relating to PUDA allotments and related consumer claims) was considered and the appellants/opposite parties' challenge was dismissed. Referred to as precedent demonstrating that similar contentions by PUDA/opposite party had been rejected previously; used as supporting authority for outcome on similar facts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission set out its reasoning by addressing the preliminary objections first and then dealing with the merits:

  1. Consumer status / "as is where" contention:
    • The Commission noted that the scheme was launched by the opposite party (PUDA), that the complainant was successful in the draw and had been issued a Letter of Intent and an allotment letter, and that the complainant paid the sale consideration as per the LOI.
    • Because the complainant availed the services of the opposite party and paid the total sale consideration, the Commission concluded the complainant became a consumer of the opposite party and therefore rejected the "as is where basis" objection to consumer status.
  2. Limitation:
    • The Commission observed that possession was to be handed over within 18 months from the allotment letter and that possession had not been delivered nor were basic amenities provided.
    • The Commission treated the matter as a continuous cause of action (possession or refund not yet effected) and therefore rejected the plea that the complaint was barred by limitation.
  3. Arbitration clause and jurisdiction:
    • The Commission found no force in the opposite party's submission that an arbitration clause ousted its jurisdiction.
    • It relied on the National Commission decision in Aftab Singh (and the Apex Court's dismissal of the related appeal) to hold that an arbitration clause of this kind cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum despite amendments to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.
    • The Commission further relied on National Seeds Corporation and Fair Air Engineers to note that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act gives an additional remedy to consumers and permits choice of forum.
  4. Whether issue is appropriate for summary adjudication by the Consumer Forum:
    • Relying on Dr. J.J. Merchant and the composition/competence of consumer fora, the Commission held that the case did not involve such complicated questions of law and fact as to be unsuitable for the Consumer Forum; it could be decided after evidence and, if necessary, expert opinion.
  5. Merits — failure to hand over possession / re-allotment:
    • The Commission examined the admitted facts: successful draw, LOI and allotment letter, payments (totaling Rs.14,82,273/- as per receipts Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-8, and an additional Rs.10,000/- penalty), and Clause 4 which prescribed the possession timeline.
    • The Commission reproduced Clause 4 (possession after completion of development works or 18 months from allotment letter; possession deemed delivered if not taken within stipulated period) and noted that the allotment letter was dated 18.10.2016.
    • It observed that opposite party issued a re-allotment letter dated 08.02.2018 (Ex.C-9) changing Plot No.922 to Plot No.93 citing technical reasons and stipulating a possession date, but the opposite party failed to place any evidence that basic amenities were completed.
    • The complainant adduced photographs (Ex.C-10) taken 22.09.2019 showing the status of development; the opposite party did not produce evidence to rebut the complainant's evidence.
    • The Commission also referred to the Objects and Functions under Section 28 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 to explain PUDA's role in planning and delivery of amenities for such schemes.
    • Given the failure to explain technical reasons for changing the plot and the lack of evidence of completed development, the Commission concluded that the opposite party was not justified in changing the originally allotted plot without consent and had failed to develop the site as committed.
  6. Relief rationale:
    • On these findings — failure to deliver possession and unauthorized re-allotment — the Commission held the complainant entitled to refund of the deposited amount with interest and to compensation for mental agony and harassment.
    • The Commission exercised its remedial jurisdiction to direct refund with interest and to award compensation and litigation expenses.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The complaint is allowed.

The Commission issued the following specific directions (core ruling emphasized in content):

  • Refund: Opposite party to refund Rs.14,92,273/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until realization.
  • Compensation and expenses: Opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, including litigation expenses.
  • Compliance timeline: The opposite party was directed to comply with the order within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: the opposite party must make the specified refund with interest and pay the awarded compensation and litigation expenses within 45 days as directed.
  • The Commission rejected jurisdictional and procedural defences raised by the opposite party (consumer status objection, limitation, arbitration clause) on the facts and authorities cited; the decision thus affirms the Consumer Forum's ability to adjudicate similar disputes under the circumstances described.
  • The order did not state that it was laying down a novel legal precedent; it relied on earlier decisions (cited above) and applied them to the facts of this dispute to arrive at the remedial directions described.

Order date and bench: Order recorded February 20, 2020 (Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President; Rajinder Kumar Goyal and Kiran Sibal, Members).

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

    Deepak Kumar Gupta v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority

    The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) seeking following directions to the opposite party: Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019

    a) to refund a sum of Rs.14,92,273/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum;

    b) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of financial risk, hardship, mental agony and harassment;

    c) to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses;

    d) any other relief which this Commission may deem fit be also granted. Facts of the Complaint

    2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the opposite party launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotment of freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave, Budhlada and applications along with 10% earnest money were invited. The complainant applied for purchase of 256.67 sq. yards plot vide application No.3192 in the said scheme and paid a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- as earnest money. On 15.01.2013, the draw of lots was held in which the complainant was declared successful and he was issued a Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013. Thereafter, the complainant paid 15% amount through demand drafts amounting to Rs.2,31,003/- to the opposite party against receipt No.6151 and No.7450. The complainant also deposited Rs.10,000/- as penal interest on the delayed payment. It has been further averred that as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the complainant after completion of development works at site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever was earlier which the opposite party failed to do so. On 18.10.2016, the complainant received the Allotment Letter Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 wherein the complainant was allotted Plot No.922, measuring 256.57 sq. yards and 25% already paid amount was adjusted. The opposite party further raised demand of balance amount of Rs.11,55,015/- being 75% of the tentative price of the plot. As per Clause 3, two payment schedule were given either to pay in 6 equated half yearly instalment along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or to be paid in lump sum within 60 days along with 5% rebate on balance principle amount. On request of the complainant, the opposite party vide letter dated 09.12.2016 gave permission the complainant to mortgage the plot. On 16.12.2016, the complainant approached the opposite party to make the balance payment after 5% rebate on the balance amount and made full and final payment of Rs.10,97,270/-.The complainant along with other plot owners requested the opposite party to complete the development works and to hand over the possession. Even after the lapse of more than 6 years, the complainant was not delivered the possession. The complainant cannot be made to wait for indefinite period to get the possession. Vide letter dated 08.02.2018, the opposite party re-allotted a plot No.93 instead of plot No.922 already allotted to the complainant. The complainant was not given any prior notice regarding draw for changing the plot number or relocation of the said plot. Even there were no basic amenities such as Water and Sewerage Services, main gate and boundary wall. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, complainant has filed this complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs. Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 Defence of the Opposite Party

    3. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed the written statement by way of affidavit taking preliminary objections that the plot has been allotted to the complainant on as is where basis. As such, complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 of the Act. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as the development works are complete at site. As per Clause 20 of Letter of Intent, in case of any dispute, the matter shall be decided by the Sole Arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator, PUDA as such, this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. The complaint involves intricate question of law and facts and cannot be decided in the summary proceedings. The complainant is stopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct. The complainant has not applied before the opposite party for refund of the amount deposited under the Scheme. The re-allotment was issued in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 08.02.2018 and the present complaint has been filed on 14.10.2019 i.e. about one and half years, as such, the complaint is beyond limitation. On merits, it is admitted that the the complainant was successful in draw of lots held on 15.01.2013 and was allotted plot No.922. It is also admitted by the opposite parties in para 9 and para 12 that the complainant paid Rs.14,82,273/- towards sale consideration and Rs.10,000/- as penalty. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 Evidence of the Parties

    4. To prove his claim, the complainant, filed his affidavit dated 14.10.2019 along with photo copies of the documents i.e. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 as Ex.C-1, Receipt dated 22.04.2013 as Ex.C-2, Receipt dated 18.09.2013 as Ex.C-3, Receipt dated 10.12.2013 as Ex.C-4, Allotment Letter dated 18.10.2016 as Ex.C-5, Letter dated 09.12.2016 as Ex.C-6, Demand Draft dated 16.12.2016 as Ex.C-7, Receipt dated 16.12.2016 as Ex.C-8, Re-allotment Letter dated 08.02.2018 as Ex.C-9, Original Photographs dated 22.09.2019 as Ex.C-10(colly), CD dated 22.09.2019 as Ex.C-11.

    5. On the other hand, opposite party filed the written statement by way of affidavit of Balwinder Kaur, Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority. Contentions of the Parties

    6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

    7. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant applied for allotment of a plot in the scheme of the opposite party and deposited Rs.1,54,000/- as earnest money. Being successful in the draw of lots, the complainant was issued Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013. As per the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent, the complainant further deposited 15% amount i.e. Rs.2,31,0003/-. The opposite party also charged Rs.10,000/- as penal interest on delayed payment. The opposite party issued an allotment letter to the complainant on 18.10.2016 wherein he was allotted plot Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 No.922, measuring 256.57 sq. yards. Thereafter, to make the payment in lumpsum, the complainant availed a loan and paid Rs.10,97,270/- to the opposite party in one go after getting 5% rebate as per the terms.As per allotment letter the possession was to be delivered after the completion of the development works at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier. However, the opposite party changed the plot No. 922 to plot No. 93 by issuing fresh re-allotment letter dated 08.02.2018, without taking any consent of the complainant. Despite repeated requests; the possession of the fully developed plot is not handed over to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

    8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that that the plot has been allotted to the complainant on as is where basis. As such, complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 of the Act. As per Clause 20 of Letter of Intent, in case of any dispute, the matter shall be decided by the Sole Arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator, PUDA as such, this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. The complaint involves intricate question of law and facts and cannot be decided in the summary proceedings. The complainant has not applied before the opposite party for refund of the amount deposited under the Scheme. The re-allotment was issued in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 08.02.2018 and the present complaint has been filed on 14.10.2019 i.e. about one and half years, as such, the complaint is beyond limitation. Moreover, after the re- allotment the complainant has raised no concern. Learned counsel Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 further argued that all the basic amenities have been completed at site. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Consideration of the Contentions

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

    10. Learned counsel for the opposite party raised an objection that the complainant had purchased the plot on as is where basis, as such, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the scheme was launched by the opposite party. The complainant being successful in the draw of lots held on 15.01.2013, was issued Letter of Intent, wherein the complainant was allotted a plot measuring 256.67 sq. yards, subject to various terms and conditions. Further the complainant paid the consideration amount as per the terms and conditions of the LOI. As per Clause 12 of the Letter of Intent, the opposite party was to hand over the possession after completion of development works at site or

    18 months from the date of issue of the allotment letter, whichever is earlier. The allotment letter was issued on 18.10.2016 but neither the development works completed nor offered the possession within the stipulated period of 18 months. The complainant availed the services of opposite party and paid the total sale consideration. Therefore, the complainant becomes consumer of the opposite party and the objection of opposite party that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer is hereby rejected. Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019

    11. Another objection has been taken that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant was issued Letter of Intent for allotment of plot measuring 256.67 sq. yards in the scheme of the opposite party on 26.02.2013, vide Ex.C-1. Against that the complainant paid Rs.14,82,273/- vide receipts Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-8. The possession of plot was to be handed over within 18 months from the issuance of the allotment letter. The allotment letter dated 18.10.2016, Ex.C-5 was issued to the complainant, wherein he was allotted plot No.922, which was later on, vide letter dated 08.02.2018, was changed to Plot No.93 but still the possession of the plot has not been handed over to the complainant by providing all the basic amenities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation, as it is a continuous cause of action until and unless the possession of plot is handed over or amount is refunded. Accordingly, the plea of opposite party is hereby rejected.

    12. The opposite party also took another objection that the complaint involves intricate question of law and facts that cannot be decided in the summary proceedings. In case we go through the pleadings of the parties, the complainant being successful in the draw of lots and allotted one plot measuring 256.67 sq. yards by the opposite party and had paid Rs.14,82,273/- as total sale consideration as per Letter of Intent but the opposite party had failed to deliver the possession of the plot within the time frame. It is only the interpretation of Letter of Intent and then to see whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? We do not see that any Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by this Commission. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment of Dr.J.J.Merchant and Ors. V. Shrinath Chaturvedi 2002(6) SCC 635, wherein it was held that the State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired High Court Judges and Officers of District Judge level and in our view, this is not such a case which cannot be decided by the Consumer Fora' after obtaining evidence and if need be after getting an expert opinion.

    13. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for opposite party is that there is an arbitration clause in the Letter of Intent, hence consumer complaint is not maintainable. We find no force in this submission of the opposite party. The matter has been settled by larger bench of Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017 titled as "Aftab Singh Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited and another". The National Commission has held in this authority that an arbitration clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the complainants and the builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Against this order of the National Commission, Civil Appeal nos.23512-23513 of 2017 titled as EMAAR MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Aftab Singh" was filed by OP before the Top Court, which has been recently dismissed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. Consequently, the existence of an arbitration clause is not a bar to resolution of this dispute by the Consumer Forum. Even otherwise, the Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 Apex Court has also so held in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another 2012(2)CLT-382/383 and in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385 that Section 3 of C.P. Act gives additional remedy to consumers to avail of his remedy as per his choice. In view of Section 3 of C.P. Act conferring the additional remedy on the consumers and thus we repel this submission of the opposite party.

    14. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly the complainant applied for allotment of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party and he was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 15.01.2013 and LoI dated 26.02.2013, Ex.C-1 was issued to the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs.1,54,000/- as earnest money with the application and Rs.2,31,003/- as 15% payment after issuance of LoI, vide Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. Rs.10,000/- as penal interest was also paid by the complainant vide Ex.C-4. Thereafter, an allotment letter dated 18.10.2016 was issued to the complainant wherein, the complainant was allotted plot No.922, measuring 256.67 sq. yards in General Category at Sugar Mill Budhlada. As per Clause 4 of the allotment letter, the possession was to be handed over after completion of development works or within 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter whichever is earlier. Relevant clause 4

    (I) is reproduced hereunder:-

    4 POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP

    I. The possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee after the completion of the development works at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter whichever is earlier. If possession is not Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 taken by the allottee within stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of said date.

    15. The complainant further deposited a sum of Rs.10,97,270/- vide receipt dated 16.12.2016, Ex.C-8. Thereafter, opposite party issued a letter dated 08.02.2018, Ex.C-9, wherein it was stated that due to technical reasons the plot No.93 has been allotted to the complainant instead of earlier allotted plot No.922 and further stated that the possession can be taken by the allottee by 01.03.2018. It was also mentioned in the letter that if the allottee do not come forward to take the possession then it will be taken as delivered. The complainant to prove his bona fide that the work at site is not completed placed on record the photographs, Ex.C-10, showing the present status of the project which were clicked on 22.09.2019.

    16. The opposite party has failed to produce any document on record to show that the basic amenities are completed on the site. By not placing on record any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence proved on record by the complainant shows that the site is still incomplete and is not ready for possession.

    17. 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 Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 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 Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019

    (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.

    18. 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 entity. 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 party 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 had purchased the plot from the opposite party. However, the opposite party failed to develop the plot earlier allotted to him and changed the said plot with new plot, without issuing any notice to the complainant. Be that as it may, the Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019 fact remains that the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot earlier allotted to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per terms and conditions of the LoI and the Allotment Letter. No specific explanation has come forth from the side of the opposite party regarding development of the plot earlier allotted to the complainant and what were the technical reasons behind change of the plot are also not explained.

    19. Identical issue 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. 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.

    20. In view of our above discussion, we hold that the opposite party is not justified in changing the originally allotted plot No.922 to plot No.93 without obtaining consent of the complainant. Also, the opposite party has also failed to develop the site as per the commitment and the complainant is being deprived of for taking the possession of the plot, in question. In these peculiar circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the entire amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, besides suitable compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him for all this long period Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2019

    21. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite party:

    i) to refund the amount of Rs.14,92,273/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization; ii) to pay Rs.25,000/-, as compensation on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, including litigation expenses.

    22. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within a period of 45 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 20 ,2020 parmod

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

    Comments

    Deepak Kumar Gupta v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority
    (Feb 20, 2020)