Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
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
Advocates
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Concise Summary of the Provided Opinion (Kuljit Singh, President)

Delivered by: Kuljit Singh, President; Member: Jyotsna — Dated: 12.01.2021

Factual and Procedural Background

The complaint was filed by complainant Nirmal Singh against the OP(s) concerning allotment and non-delivery of possession of a Lower Income Group (LIG) flat in the Bibi Bhani Complex (Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acres), Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar. The complainant submitted application No. 71541, completed required formalities, and was allotted LIG Flat No. 52-A, First Floor in a lucky draw dated 16.08.2009. Allotment was communicated by letter no. JIT/7973 dated 28.01.2010. The complainant paid the entire purchase price of Rs. 564,800 to the OP as per the allotment letter dated 28.01.2010.

The complainant alleged that OP did not deliver possession of the flat even after more than seven years from the date of allotment and sought refund of Rs. 564,800 with interest @ 18% p.a. from date of deposit, Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental harassment, Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs and other expenses.

The OP appeared, filed a written reply raising preliminary objections (including maintainability, abuse of process, laches) and admitted allotment and receipt of the purchase price but denied other allegations. OP asserted that the complainant defaulted in taking possession and relied on a letter JIT/6985 dated 18.05.2017 offering possession to the complainant.

Evidence: Complainant tendered affidavits Ex.CA & Ex.CB and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12. OP produced affidavit Ex.OA and documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3. The court heard parties, examined written arguments, and reviewed the record.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the OP's protracted delay and failure to deliver possession of the allotted flat (after receiving full consideration) amounts to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
  2. Whether, in the factual matrix, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited (with interest) and compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs.
  3. Whether the OP can rely on the contention that the complainant defaulted in taking possession (including reliance on OP's letter dated 18.05.2017) to defeat the complaint.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

  • Complainant completed application formalities (Application No. 71541) and was allotted Flat No. 52-A; allotment confirmed by letter no. JIT/7973 dated 28.01.2010 (Ex.C-1).
  • Paid entire purchase price of Rs. 564,800 (receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12) but OP failed to deliver possession even after more than seven years.
  • Alleged deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice by OP due to inordinate and unjustified delay and failure to give possession; sought refund with interest, compensation and litigation costs.

OP's Arguments

  • Raised preliminary objections: complaint not maintainable, abuse of process, barred by laches and complainant's conduct.
  • Admitted allotment and receipt of the purchase price but denied allegations of deficiency and unfair trade practice.
  • Contended that complainant defaulted in taking possession; OP sent letter JIT/6985 dated 18.05.2017 inviting complainant to take possession, but complainant did not respond.
  • Affidavit of Jatinder Singh (Ex.OA) stated delivery of possession depends on willingness of taker and denied deficiency in service on part of OP.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate and Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711 The opinion records reliance upon this judgment (no elaboration of the specific ratio is provided in the excerpt). Used, together with other authorities, to support the proposition that failure to be in possession of land/plots at the time of launching a scheme can amount to unfair trade practice and justify refund orders.
Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 Relied upon in the opinion (specific principle not separately described in the excerpt). Relied upon by the Commission as part of the body of authorities supporting treatment of similar conduct as unfair trade practice.
Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Lal (2010 CTJ 121) (Supreme Court) Relied upon in the opinion (no separate statement of the rule in the excerpt). Relied upon to reinforce the view that the acts complained of (launching schemes without possession, not delivering possession) can constitute unfair trade practice.
Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India, 1973 (3) SCC 554 Cited among the judgments relied upon (specific legal proposition not described in the excerpt). Part of the set of authorities the Commission relied upon to uphold the position that refund orders are valid where unfair trade practice is proved.
Orders / Appeals involving Jalandhar Improvement Trust: Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. vs Munish Dev Sharma) and related proceedings (including Civil Appeal/S.L.P. references) These proceedings involved the Trust and the National Commission/High Court/Supreme Court decisions concerning non-delivery of possession and unfair trade practice; the opinion refers to the Trust's appeals and the observations of the National Commission. The opinion notes that the State Commission's view (that launching scheme without possession and failing to deliver possession amounts to unfair trade practice and that refund is an appropriate remedy) has been upheld up to the Supreme Court in the Trust's earlier litigation; the prior appeals were dismissed (including dismissal by the Supreme Court) and an appeal was described as an abuse of process with punitive costs imposed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in a structured way based on the pleadings, evidence and the agreement between the parties:

  1. Evidence and Pleadings: The complainant tendered affidavits (Ex.CA, Ex.CB) and documentary proof of allotment (Ex.C-1) and payment receipts (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12). The OP produced affidavit Ex.OA and documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3. Both parties closed evidence and were heard.
  2. Contractual Term Examined: The court reproduced paragraph 3 of the agreement for sale (Ex.O-2) which stated that possession of the semi-finished flat shall be delivered by the Trust to the allottee "on As is where is basis" after full payment and completion of prescribed documents, and that the Trust would not entertain complaints regarding cost, design, material, workmanship or requests for additions/alterations. The court noted that both parties were bound by the agreement's terms.
  3. Standards for Delivery of Possession: The court observed that once the complainant paid the entire price (Rs. 564,800 as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010), it was the duty of the OP to deliver possession to the allottee. The court found that OP did not discharge that duty.
  4. OP's Reliance on Complainant Default: The OP claimed the complainant did not appear to take possession and pointed to a letter dated 18.05.2017 (JIT/6985). The court reviewed that letter and found it insufficient: it did not state that construction and all amenities were complete, and an offer to take possession alone was not enough in light of the agreement and surrounding circumstances.
  5. Delay and Lack of Justification: The court concluded that OP had "miserably failed to complete the construction within a stipulated period of 2 years" from allotment and that there existed no adequate or sufficient reason for nondelivery of possession within the scheduled period. Consequently, the delay could not be condoned.
  6. Absence of Evidence of Possession/Demarcation: The court noted that OP placed no document on record showing demarcation of plots or transfer of possession of any plot in favour of any person. The court observed that if the OP did not have possession of the acquired property, launching the scheme and collecting money from applicants would amount to unfair trade practice.
  7. Administrative/Government Guidance: The court referred to a government memorandum (Memo No. 6/44/05-4LG2/16729-90 dated 21.10.2005, and a reference to instructions dated 23.2.1983) directing Improvement Trusts to allot/sell only such plots/land/site which were available with the Trust free from encumbrances and to certify physical possession before commencing allotment/auction. The court used this to reinforce the requirement that possession be available before allotment.
  8. Reliance on Prior Commission and Court Decisions: The court referred to prior National Commission findings and further appeals involving the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, noting that the State Commission's view (that failure to have possession and then collecting money amounts to unfair trade practice and that refund is an appropriate remedy) had been upheld up to the Supreme Court in earlier litigation. The court listed multiple authorities it relied upon in making its assessment.
  9. Conclusion from Reasoning: Based on the material on record (allotment letter, payment receipts, agreement terms, absence of demarcation/possession documentation, government guidance and precedents), the court found the delay and failure to deliver possession was not satisfactorily explained by OP and that such conduct engaged the taint of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

Holding and Implications

The provided excerpt does not contain an explicit, detailed dispositive order (for example, a clear statement that the complaint was allowed or dismissed, or specific directions such as an order for refund in this particular file) within the text made available.

Implications and direct effects visible in the excerpt:

  • The court recorded findings adverse to OP on key factual and legal points: OP failed to complete construction within the stipulated period, did not place on record documents of demarcation or proof of possession, and its offer to take possession by letter dated 18.05.2017 was held to be insufficient.
  • The court relied upon government memoranda and earlier decisions—up to the Supreme Court in related litigation involving the Jalandhar Improvement Trust—establishing the principle that launching schemes without possession and collecting money may constitute unfair trade practice and that refunds can be a valid remedy in such cases.
  • Procedural disposition recorded in the excerpt: the file was directed to be indexed and consigned to the record room. The opinion directs that copies of the order be sent to the parties "as permissible, under the rules."

Note: Because the excerpt provided does not explicitly recite the final adjudicatory order in the present complaint (for example, it does not explicitly state "Complaint allowed and OP directed to refund..."), this summary does not assert any specific operative relief beyond what is explicitly recorded above.

Disposition / Administrative Notes in the Excerpt

The excerpt closes with administrative directions: "File be indexed and consigned to the record room." The opinion is signed and dated by the Member (Jyotsna) and the President (Kuljit Singh) on 12.01.2021. The text also contains a direction that copies of the order be sent to the parties "as permissible, under the rules."

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

    Nirmal Singh S/o Sh Mohinder Singh v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust

    Per KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT The present complaint has been filed by complainant Nirmal Singh against the OP on the averments that he was allured by OPs venture for development of Bibi Bhani Complex LIG Flats to provide shelter to needy public with ultra-modern facilities with quality and standard of construction. He submitted application no.71541 on prescribed form to OP along with all requisite documents and completed all requirements. He was allotted LIG Flat no. 52-A, First Floor, Vikas Scheme 515 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex) Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.08.2009 at Red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar. The information regarding the allotment of LIG Flat was given by OP vide its letter no.JIT/7973 dated 28.01.2010 to her. He paid whole purchase price of the flat in sum of Rs.564800/- to OP as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010. The OP had not given possession of the flat to him even after protracted follow up and lapse of more than seven years from the date of allotment. OP was unable to give any valid reason and justification for unpardonable delay and non delivery of possession and assured to her till date. The delay in delivery of possession as per se attract odium of deficiency, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, she filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.5,64,800/- deposited by her with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of deposit till actual payment, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and other expenses.

    2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint does not lie with the Forum. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law. The complainant is barred by his own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed in the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the flat in question has been allotted to the complainant and complainant has also deposited the entire price of the flat, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

    3. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavits Ex.CA & Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. To refute this evidence, OP tendered in evidence affidavit as Ex.OA alongwith some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3 and closed the evidence.

    4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined written arguments filed by complainant and have also gone through the record very carefully.

    5. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA in support of his case. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. He alleged OP had not given possession of the flat to her even after protracted follow up and lapse of more than seven years from the date of allotment. OP was unable to give any valid reason and justification to him till date. The delay is tainted with malafide and arbitrariness. Ex.C-B is additional affidavit of complainant on the record. Ex.C-1 is copy of allotment letter no.7973 dated 28.01.2010 issued to complainant. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 are copies of receipts of payments of different dates. To counter this evidence of complainant, OP relied upon affidavit of Jatinder Singh E.O as Ex.O-A in support the case of OP. This witness stated that the complainant has himself defaulted in taking possession. The delivery of possession depends upon willingness of taker of possession. He denied any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

    6. This fact is admitted by complainant that he was allotted LIG Flat no. 52-A First Floor Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acres (Bibi Bhani Complex) Guru Amar Dass Nagar Jalandhar. This fact is also proved vide document Ex.C-1 allotment letter no.7973 dated 28.01.2010 placed on record. Ex.O-2 is agreement for sale executed between the parties. Both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Para no.3 of the agreement is reproduced as under :- Possession of the semi-finished flat shall be delivered by the Trust to the intended allottee/vendee on As is where is basis after the later has paid all dues including difference of reserve price from tentative cost furnished/executed all documents as required/prescribed by the Trust under the rules. The Trust shall not entertain any complaint whatsoever regarding cost of flat its design and quality of material used, workmanship or any other defect. The Trust shall also not entertain any request for addition and alteration in the building of the flat. The intended allottee/vendee agrees and undertakes not to make such request/complaint aforesaid and shall accept the possession of the flation As is where is basis. He shall maintain the flat at his own costs in satisfactory conditions after possession thereof is takenby him. The above said term not complied by OP. Once, the complainant entire price of the flat i.e. Rs.564800/- to OP as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, then it is duty of OP to deliver the possession to allottee but same was not done by OP.The OP pleaded in its writtenreply that complainant neither write any letter to OP nor visited the office nor evinced intention to take possession rather OP wrote letter JIT/6985dated 18.05.2017 to complainant to take possession, but the complainant himself did not turn up to take the possession and as such, the complainant himself defaulted by not coming forward to take the possession of the flat as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. No doubt, the OP has sent the said letter dated 18.05.2017 to the complainant. If we go through the said letter dated 18.05.2017, then we can adjudge without any hesitation that the OP has not mentioned in the letter that the construction work of the flat is totally complete with all amenities and necessity of the life, simply giving offer to take the possession, is not sufficient because as per allotment letter, the other facilities are also to be provided to the allottee, but in this case, the complainant has established on the file that since a day of allotment of letter i.e. 28.01.2010, the OP has miserably failed to complete the construction within a stipulated period of 2 years. The delay on the part of OP cannot be condoned because there exist no adequate and sufficient reason for non-delivery of possession promised within scheduled period of time. No document has been placed on the record by Ops showing the demarcation of the plots or giving possession of any plot in favour of any person. In case the possession of the acquired property is not with Ops then it is an unfair trade practice on the part of OP to launch the scheme and to collect the money from various applicants. The Government had issued letters to various Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab i.e. Memo No. 6/44/05-4LG2/16729-90 dated 21.10.2005 wherein after giving a reference of the instructions issued vide letter No. 66-I-30II- 83/7070-7090 dated 23.2.1983 directions were given to all the Trusts to allot/sell only such plot/land, the site which is available with the Trust free from all encumbrances and it was further mentioned that before the process of allotment/auction of the site is commenced, Chairman and Executive Officers will certify on the record that physical possession of the site of proposed allotment/auction free from all encumbrances/obstructions is readily available for onwards transfer to the prospective allottee/buyer and that there is no physical obstruction to start the construction activities. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble National Commission

    i.e. Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 i.e. "Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & Anr. " alongwith F Versus Munish Dev Sharma .A. No. 1261 of 2014 i.e. "Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & Anr. Versus Sanjay Gupta" against the order . In that judgment, the Hon'blepassed by the Principal Bench in CC No. 81 of 2013 National Commission observed that Ops had invited the applications from the general public and after taking the substantial amount of money issued the allotment letter, however, they had failed to deliver the possession for a period of more than 3 years. A reference was also given to the writ petitions filed by the land owners before the Hon'ble High Court in which order of status quo regarding possession was ordered and it was observed that at the time of launching the scheme, Ops were not in possession of entire land, which amounted to unfair trade practice as defined under of the Act.Section 2(1)(r) After relying upon the judgments in "Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate and Bank" (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 711 "Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. , Balbir Singh", (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65 "Bikaner Urban Improvement ( Trust Vs. Mohan Lal" 2010 CTJ 121 (Supreme Court) CP) and "Dilbagh Rai Jarry V. ", upheld the order passed by the State Commission. ItUnion of India 1973 (3) SCC 554 was observed that the appeal is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and same was dismissed with punitive cost of Rs. 5 lacs and its SLP No. 23471 of 2015 in Civil Appeal " wasNo. 9294 of 2015 "Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Versus Munish Dev also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the view of this State Commission has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case Ops had indulged in unfair trade practice then the refund of the amount taken by Ops is a valid order. opies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

    12. File be indexed and consigned to the record room. Dated : (Jyotsna) (Kuljit Singh) 12.01.2021 Member President [ Kuljit Singh] PRESIDENT [ Jyotsna] MEMBER

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

    Comments

    Nirmal Singh S/o Sh Mohinder Singh v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust
    (Jan 12, 2021)