- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Ajaib Singh
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab — Reasoned Order (13 July 2022)
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a consolidated judgment disposing of 93 First Appeals (filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) filed by the Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA/BDA) through its Estate Officer and by various allottees/claimants. The appeals arise from multiple orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (various dates in 2021 and 2020) that partly allowed complaints by allottees in respect of allotment schemes (PUDA Enclave, Budhlada and other projects) and directed refunds of amounts deposited by allottees, with interest, compensation and costs.
The factual nucleus common to many cases: PUDA launched allotment schemes by draw of lots, issued Letters of Intent and allotment letters, and allottees/depositors paid amounts towards plot purchase. The allottees alleged that PUDA changed the number/location of allotted plots without obtaining their individual consent or giving written notice, failed to complete development works and basic amenities, and did not hand over legal/physical possession within the time promised. In many matters the opposite party (PUDA/BDA) returned some amounts (in some cases after complaint) but without interest. The District Commissions found deficiency in service/unfair trade practice in many complaints and awarded refund/interest/compensation. PUDA/BDA filed First Appeals against those orders; in several appeals there were issues of limitation, applicability of arbitration clauses, whether completion/occupation certificates existed, appropriate rate/date of interest, and whether complainants were original or subsequent allottees.
The State Commission heard representative/master matters (extracted facts primarily from First Appeal No. 410 of 2021) and decided all appeals by a common order dated 13.07.2022 (Quorum: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President, and Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member). Some appeals were dismissed, some partly allowed, and in a number of cases the District Commission orders were modified (notably to fix interest at 9% p.a. in many matters or to change the date from which interest runs for subsequent allottees).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complaints were within limitation — i.e., whether there is a continuous cause of action where possession has not been delivered or refunds not made.
- Whether an arbitration clause in the allotment/allottee agreements bars the jurisdiction of consumer fora to entertain these disputes.
- Whether change of plot number/location without individual notice and failure to complete development works amounts to 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice'.
- Whether an offer of possession or photographs suffice to prove actual, legal possession where Completion/Occupation Certificates from competent authorities are absent.
- The appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on refundable amounts (dispute over 9% v. 12% v. other rates) and the date from which interest should run — particularly distinction between original allottees and subsequent/allottees purchasers.
- Whether District Commissions had jurisdiction despite statutory provisions and administrative decisions noted by the appellant (PUDA).
- Where amounts already refunded, whether interest remains payable and from which date (deposit/refund/transfer) it should run.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant / PUDA (Opposite Party) — Main Arguments
- Reshuffling of allotment (change of plot number/location) was done for technical reasons and for re-planning; the re-allotment did not change the allottee's entitlement because the new plot had same dimensions.
- Complainant was informed of the change (letter dated 08.02.2018) and was offered possession by organised special camps; in some cases possession had been offered within the stipulated period.
- No provision for refund with interest existed in the allotment terms; meeting dated 28.06.2019 decided that refunds (if demanded) would be made without interest and without deduction.
- There was an Arbitration Clause in the allotment letter, which PUDA contended should bar the District Commission's jurisdiction.
- Several legal precedents were cited in support, including Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh and CA PUDA & Anr. v. Manju Chauhan (cited to contest rate of interest and other points).
Respondent / Complainants — Main Arguments
- Complainants paid the price (in some cases 100% with rebate) but PUDA failed to complete development works, provide basic amenities or deliver possession within the contractual/stipulated period.
- Change of plot number/location was unilateral, without individual written notice or consent, and therefore contrary to the allotment terms; such act caused harassment and deprived complainants of promised performance.
- Where PUDA refunded amounts, it did so without interest; complainants claimed interest and compensation for delay and deficiency.
- Authority of consumer fora to adjudicate these disputes was asserted; precedents were relied upon (including Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghvan and DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Navin Sharma (Dr.) & others v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2016 (2) CLT 457 (NCDRC) | Holds that failure to deliver possession is a continuous cause of action; limitation does not run while possession is undelivered. | The Commission relied on this authority to hold the complaints within limitation (continuous cause until possession delivered or amount refunded). |
| Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. M/s Unitech Ltd., 2015 (3) CPJ 440 (NCDRC) | Similar proposition: failure to deliver possession is a continuing wrong; limitation runs only if seller refuses to deliver possession. | The Commission cited this case in support of the continuous cause of action principle and found complaints not barred by limitation. |
| Raghava Estates Ltd. v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association (SLA No.35805 of 2012) | Cited within Navin Sharma to support continuous cause of action principle. | Referenced as supporting authority for the continuous cause of action analysis on limitation. |
| Aftab Singh v. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 (Larger Bench, NCDRC) (order dated 13.07.2017) and related Civil Appeals (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. v. Aftab Singh) | Holds that arbitration clause in such builder/allottee agreements does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora/Commissions (Larger Bench holding; apex court dismissed appeals). | The Commission applied this principle to hold that an Arbitration Clause in the allotment letter did not bar consumer jurisdiction; the cited Apex Court orders dismissing appeals/reviews were noted. |
| Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra, First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (NCDRC, 13.06.2018) | Legal possession cannot be delivered in absence of Completion Certificate issued by competent authority. | The Commission relied on this authority to hold that alleged 'offer' of possession without completion/occupation certificate was only a paper transaction and insufficient to prove legal possession. |
| Suman Kumar Jha & another v. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., CC No.54/2018 (NCDRC, 29.10.2021) | Offering possession of incomplete construction/unit/plot without obtaining Completion Certificate amounts to 'unfair trade practice'. | The Commission applied this to conclude offering possession absent completion certificate amounted to unfair practice and could not defeat complainants' claims. |
| Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh (No.7042 of 2019) (Supreme Court) (22.07.2021) | Addressed reliefs for subsequent purchasers: interest on refund to be moulded; direction that interest @9% p.a. may be appropriate in some circumstances and interest for subsequent purchasers may run from date builder acquired knowledge of transfer/acknowledged it. | The Commission relied on Laureate to: (a) treat 9% p.a. as a reasonable rate in many cases; (b) hold that for subsequent/allottees interest should run from the date the builder/authority acquired knowledge of transfer or acknowledged it. The decision informed modifications of District Commission orders (reducing 12% awards to 9% in many cases and fixing start dates for subsequent allottees). |
| CA PUDA & Anr. v. Manju Chauhan (F.A. No.1703 of 2019; order dated 12.02.2020) | Relied upon by appellant with respect to rate of interest (instance of interest being reduced in that decision). | The Commission noted this authority as relied upon by the appellant but, in the present facts, found 9% to be reasonable (rather than lower rates cited in that authority). |
| Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghvan, 2019 (2) CPJ 34 (Supreme Court) | Cited by respondent for proposition that buyers/allottees have remedies for non-delivery/deficiency; supports consumer reliefs for defaults by developers/authorities. | The Commission recorded that the respondent relied on this authority in support of entitlement to refund/interest; it formed part of the matrix of authorities supporting complainants' rights. |
| DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association, CA-3864-3889 of 2020 (order dated 14.12.2020) | Cited by respondent as supporting consumer remedies in housing allotment disputes. | Noted by the Commission as relied upon by the respondent; used as supporting context but specific application is the Commission's overall analysis favouring complainants where development incomplete. |
| Ram Kishan & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP No.4108 of 2016 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) | Criticised launching schemes without completing development; High Court issued directions against allotting sites until development and amenities are ensured; stressed parity for allottees and minimizing litigation. | The Commission cited this High Court decision to emphasise that authorities must not launch schemes without proper guidelines and full development; it reinforced conclusion that PUDA's conduct caused litigation and mental agony to complainants. |
| Bathinda Development Authority (PUDA) v. Gurdas Singh RP, No.11 of 2016 (order dated 17.12.2019) | Authority on awarding interest/compensation in similar PUDA matters; cited in context of interest awards (12% in some instances earlier). | The Commission noted reliance on this authority by parties; it also used earlier NCDRC/National Commission holdings to situate the present decision and to explain why many prior awards were modified to 9%. |
| Dwarkadhish Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushila Kataria RP No.3558 of 2011 (order dated 27.03.2012) | Example of consumer reliefs in allotment/developer disputes (cited by respondent). | Noted as relied upon by the respondent; contributed to the body of authorities supporting relief for allottees where delivery/ infrastructure not provided. |
| Sangeeta Aggarwal v. M/s Chitels India Pvt. Ltd., CC-2562 of 2018 (order dated 27.05.2022) | Cited by respondent in support of reliefs in consumer disputes against builders/developers. | Recorded by the Commission as a reliance by the respondent; used in broader context of consumer remedies (no separate departure from the case law principles applied). |
| Jagpreet Singh Sarai v. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors., CC No.72 of 2017 (State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh; order dated 04.01.2017) | Cited by respondent as supporting consumer claims against developers/authorities for non-delivery / deficiency. | Noted by the Commission as one of the authorities relied upon by the respondent; contributed to contextual support for awarding refund/interest/compensation where developments were incomplete. |
| Meerut Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12 (referenced) | Referred to in the context of continuous cause of action and buyer remedies. | Referenced within the Commission's limitation analysis as part of precedent supporting continuous cause of action principle. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission issued a common order because common questions of law and fact arose in the 93 appeals. It proceeded by adopting First Appeal No.410 of 2021 as the master case for extracting and analysing relevant facts, and applied the resulting reasoning across the other appeals with adjustments where particular facts differed.
On limitation (continuous cause of action) — The Commission accepted the submission that where possession has not been delivered or amounts have not been refunded, there is a continuous cause of action. It relied upon National Commission authorities (Navin Sharma and Satish Kumar Pandey) and related Supreme Court references to hold that the complaints were within limitation because legal/actual possession with complete development/infrastructure had not been delivered and amounts had not been refunded.
On arbitration clause and jurisdiction — The Commission held that the Arbitration Clause in the allotment letters did not bar the jurisdiction of consumer fora/Commissions, relying on the Larger Bench NCDRC decision in Aftab Singh v. EMAAR and noting that the Supreme Court had dismissed challenges thereto. The Commission therefore entertained the appeals and did not stay matters on that ground.
On merits — change of plot, notice and development — Factually, the Commission noted that the allotment letter provided possession after completion of development works or within 18 months. The opposite party had reshuffled allotments and changed plot numbers (e.g., plot No.997 to plot No.702 in FA No.410/2021) but had not disclosed the technical reasons for the change, had not given individual written notice or obtained consent, and had not produced evidence of actual, physical and legal possession (no completion/occupation certificate). Documentary evidence (letters dated 11.04.2019, 21.02.2019, 09.10.2019 and photos) showed development was incomplete; indeed correspondence indicated raw water and boundary wall works were pending. Under applicable statutes (PAPRA and municipal completion/occupation provisions) and precedent (Vision India Realtors, Suman Kumar Jha), legal possession requires completion certificates — absent such certificates, offers were 'paper transactions' and constituted unfair trade practice/deficiency in service.
On rate/date of interest and reliefs — The Commission discussed divergent authorities: some awards had 12% p.a., others lower or 9%. It considered the Supreme Court decision in Laureate Buildwell (which supported interest at 9% in relevant circumstances and provided guidance on subsequent allottees), and determined that 9% p.a. was a reasonable and justified rate in the present group of matters. Consequently:
- For original allottees whose complaints were allowed by the District Commissions, the Commission generally upheld refunds with interest at 9% p.a., along with the consolidated compensation/costs awarded by the District Commissions.
- Where District Commissions had awarded higher interest (e.g., 12% p.a.), the Commission reduced the rate to 9% p.a. (modified those orders accordingly).
- For subsequent/allottees (purchasers from original allottees), the Commission applied the Laureate principle: interest is payable from the date the authority acquired knowledge of or acknowledged the transfer (i.e., from the date of transfer of LoI/plot), and modified District Commission orders so that interest runs from the date of transfer as applicable.
- Where the principal amount had already been refunded by PUDA, the Commission clarified that interest remains payable on the refunded/principal amounts and must be calculated accordingly.
On factual variations and corrections — The Commission identified and corrected inadvertent errors in some District Commission orders (for example, where a refund figure in the order did not reflect amounts already refunded). It directed that in such cases the orders be modified to reflect the correct refundable sums and interest treatment.
Procedural matters and directions — Miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay were allowed where affidavits supported the case; delays in filing were condoned in numerous appeals. The Commission ordered that amounts deposited by appellants at the time of filing appeals, and any additional sums deposited in compliance with interim orders, be remitted by the registry to the respective District Commissions forthwith so that claimants could seek release from the District Commissions after the expiry of limitation (and after appropriate verification where necessary, e.g., in cases of deceased complainants and legal representatives).
Holding and Implications
The State Commission rendered a comprehensive, categorical decision addressing the cluster of appeals. The core rulings and their immediate consequences are:
Holding:
- DISPOSED OF — All 93 First Appeals were disposed of by the common order dated 13.07.2022. The Commission treated FA No.410 of 2021 as a master file and applied its reasoning across the appeals, with case-by-case modifications where warranted.
- For original allottees, the Commission generally upheld the District Commission orders directing refunds (or confirming refunds already made) together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and with consolidated compensation/costs as awarded by the District Commissions.
- Where District Commissions had awarded interest at rates higher than 9% (notably 12% in some cases), the Commission modified those orders to reduce the rate to 9% per annum.
- For subsequent/allottees, the Commission modified awards so that interest is payable at 9% per annum starting from the date when the authority acquired knowledge of the transfer/acknowledged the transfer (i.e., date of transfer/LoI to the subsequent purchaser), in line with the Laureate decision.
- The Commission found arbitration clauses in the allotment letters did not oust consumer fora jurisdiction and therefore refused to decline to adjudicate for that reason.
- The Commission confirmed that an offer of possession without completion/occupation certificates and without actual development is not sufficient to deny relief; lack of completion certificates and incomplete development support findings of deficiency and unfair trade practice.
Implications / Direct effects on the parties:
- District Commission awards in favour of complainants were in the main upheld (subject to uniform modification on rate/date of interest). Complainants who were original allottees are entitled to refund of deposited amounts (where ordered) with interest at 9% p.a., compensation and costs as per the District Commissions' orders upheld or as modified.
- For subsequent allottees, refunds and interest were ordered or confirmed, but interest runs from the date of transfer of the plot/LoI (or the date the authority acquired knowledge of the transfer) as applicable.
- Where PUDA had already refunded principal sums without interest, the Commission clarified that interest remains payable on the refunded amounts and directed payment as per the modifications.
- The registry was directed to remit deposits made in the appeals to the respective District Commissions to enable release to complainants (subject to verification/limitation and any adjustments ordered). The Commission fixed a compliance period of 45 days for the opposite party to implement the orders.
- All pending miscellaneous applications in the consolidated matters were disposed of.
Note: This summary is strictly confined to the matters, facts, arguments, authorities and remedies expressly recorded in the State Commission's reasoned order dated 13.07.2022. Any consequences listed are the direct effects spelled out in the order (refunds, interest at specified rates, remittance of deposited sums, modifications to impugned orders, and timelines for compliance).
Order signed: JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, President; RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, Member. Date: 13.07.2022.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
CASES PERTAINING TO ORIGINAL ALLOTTEES: REFUND WITH
9% INTEREST AND CONSOLIDATED COMPENSATION/COSTS AS
AWARDED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSION
1) First Appeal No.410 of 2021 Date of institution : 23.11.2021 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority) PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ajaib Singh son of Kamikar Singh, resident of Gas Agency Road, Budhlada, District Mansa.
….Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Mansa.
2) First Appeal No.266 of 2022 Date of Institution : 05.04.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 The Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority (BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.
……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Vijay Pal Makkar S/o Sh.Lekh Raj Makkar, aged about 53 years R/o H.No.402, L.B. Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
24.11.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bathinda.
1
2
3) First Appeal No.268 of 2022 Date of Institution : 05.04.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Bathinda Development Authority (BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer.
……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Upinder Singh, S/o Sh.Tarlochan Singh R/o #455/3, Khalsa Mohalla, Patiala.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
16.11.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bathinda.
4) First Appeal No.417 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Darshan Singh son of Hukam Singh, resident of Village Ahmedpur, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
15.04.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
5) First Appeal No.61 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022
3
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Jaspal S/o Diwan Chand R/o Ward No.13 Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
6) First Appeal No.62 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Sudarshan Kumar R/o 139A, Model Town, Samrala Road, Khanna, Ludhiana, Punjab.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
7) First Appeal No.66 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
4
……Appellant/Opposite Party Versus
Ashima D/o Sh.Vinod Kumar R/o House No.654, Sector 9 & 11, Tehsil & District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
8) First Appeal No.70 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sunita Bansal W/o Rajiv Bansal R/o House No.52, Green Park, Tehsil & District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
9) First Appeal No.82 of 2022 Date of Institution : 07.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
5
Jagroop Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Fauja Singh, resident of village Theh Kalander, Tehsil and District Fazilka. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
04.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridkot.
10) First Appeal No.116 of 2022 Date of institution : 18.02.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Lachhman Garg S/o Sham Lal, R/o Budh Marg, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, now residing at # 3094, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
11) First Appeal No.118 of 2022 Date of institution : 18.02.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Munish Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, R/o S.D. Girls College Street, Near Satsung Bhawan, Ward No.13, District Mansa, Punjab. …..Respondent/Complainant
6
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
12) First Appeal No.119 of 2022 Date of institution : 18.02.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Kamlesh D/o Som Lal, R/o House No.79, Ward No.8, Pooni Street, Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
13) First Appeal No.215 of 2022 Date of institution : 22.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Vinod Kumar S/o Dharam Pal, resident of Ward No.12, Dhrampura Mohalla, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, Distt. Mansa. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
14) First Appeal No.216 of 2022
7
Date of institution : 22.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Kashmiri Lal S/o Piyara Lal, resident of Near Girls High School, Boha, Tehsil Budhlada, Distt. Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
15) First Appeal No.217 of 2022 Date of institution : 22.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Santosh Kumari Goyal W/o Sh. Satish Kumar Goyal, R/o #217, Ward No.03, Kabir Colony, Budhlada.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
16) First Appeal No.218 of 2022 Date of institution : 22.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer.
8
….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus
Anupam Jindal W/o Navneet Jindal, R/o House No.143, Arvind Nagar, N.M. College Road, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
17) First Appeal No.220 of 2022 Date of institution : 22.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Satpal Singh S/o Des Singh, R/o Village and Post Office Biroke Kalan, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
18) First Appeal No.221 of 2022 Date of institution : 22.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Om Parkash S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o # 446, Urban Estate, Phase-2, Now residing at # 632, Urban Estate, Phase-2, Patiala.
9
…..Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
19) First Appeal No.229 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Mithu Ram S/o Sh. Surat Ram, R/o SCF No.23, New Grain Market, Dirba Mandi, District Sangrur.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
20) First Appeal No.230 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Basakhi Ram S/o Sh. Surat Ram, R/o S.C.F. No.29, New Grain Market, Dirba Mandi, District Sangrur.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
10
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
21) First Appeal No.231 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Sohan Lal, R/o Main Bazar, VPO Boha, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
22) First Appeal No.232 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Dhoop Singh, R/o # 1257, Sector-13, Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
23) First Appeal No.235 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022
11
Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Pawan Kumar S/o Sita Ram, R/o House No.212, Landhri, Tehsil and District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
24) First Appeal No.237 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Munish Kumar S/o Satpal, Resident of Dialpura Road, Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
25) First Appeal No.238 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
12
Versus Shankar Dayal S/o Sh. Dhoop Singh, R/o VPO Kajlan, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
26) First Appeal No.246 of 2022 Date of institution : 29.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rajni Bala W/o Sohal Lal, Resident of Ward No.11, Near Durga Mandir, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, Distt. Mansa. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
27) First Appeal No.247 of 2022 Date of institution : 29.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar Gupta, R/o # ITI Road, Janak Raj Hospital, Budhlada.
…..Respondent/Complainant
13
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
28) First Appeal No.248 of 2022 Date of institution : 29.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Savita Garg W/o Mohinder Kumar, Resident of House No.22-B, Hira Nagar, Tehsil and District Patiala.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
29) First Appeal No.250 of 2022 Date of institution : 29.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh. Narinder Nath, Resident of #186, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
14
30) First Appeal No.293 of 2022 Date of institution : 19.04.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rakesh Bansal S/o Late Sohan Lal Bansal, Resident of House No.374, Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, Chandi Mandir Cantt. (Haryana).
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
31) First Appeal No.295 of 2022 Date of institution : 19.04.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rachna Devi W/o Barham Dutt Aggarwal, Resident of House No.127, Phulkian Enclave, Patiala.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
19.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
Cases Pertaining to Second/Subsequent Allottee with 9% interest and consolidated Compensation/Costs as awarded by the District Commission:
15
32) First Appeal No.117 of 2022 Date of institution : 18.02.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Manju Rani W/o Manoj Kumar, C/o Shop No.191, New Grain Market, Tehsil & District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
33) First Appeal No.409 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Suresh Kumar son of Bharat Singh, resident of House No.5022, Sector-11, Tehsil and District Jind, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
05.04.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
34) First Appeal No.490 of 2022 Date of institution : 08.06.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022
16
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority) PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Manoj Kumar son of Nanu Ram, Resident of H.No.50, Sector 14, Hissar, Tehsil and District Hissar, Haryana.
….Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 19.10.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Mansa.
35) First Appeal No.415 of 2021 Date of institution : 23.11.2021 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority) PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Baljit Singh Gulati son of Sh. Gurbax Singh Gulati, resident of House No.1486/35, Street No.3, Harikrishan Nagar, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana. ….Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Mansa.
36) First Appeal No.59 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
17
……Appellant/Opposite Party Versus
Vijay Kumar Singla S/o Kundan Lal R/o # 785, Patel Nagar, Ludhiana now residing at # 26-A, Old Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
37) First Appeal No.69 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Usha W/o Naresh Kumar R/o House No.115, New Anaj Mandi, Ward No.14, Barwala, District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
38) First Appeal No.110 of 2022 Date of Institution : 18.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
18
Mamta Rani W/o Mahabir Singla R/o House No.50, Sector 14, Tehsil & District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
39) First Appeal No.111 of 2022 Date of Institution : 18.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sakuntla Devi W/o Mahabir Prasad C/o Shree Mahabir Trading Company, New Bus Stand, Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
40) First Appeal No.113 of 2022 Date of Institution : 18.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Shiv Niwas S/o Banarasi Dass R/o House No.666, 1stFloor, Sector-14, Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
19
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
41) First Appeal No.114 of 2022 Date of Institution : 18.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Naresh Aggarwal S/o Sat Parkash Aggarwal R/o 262 1stFloor, Chander Priya Apartment, Pocket A-3, Rohini, New Delhi. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
42) First Appeal No.115 of 2022 Date of institution : 18.02.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Anil Kumar S/o Gurdas Ram, R/o House No.729, Housing Board Colony, Sector-7, Ambala City, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
20
43) First Appeal No.185 of 2022 Date of institution : 10.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Satye Singh S/o Raghubir Singh, resident of V&PO Thaska, Tehsil and District Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
12.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
44) First Appeal No.208 of 2022 Date of institution : 21.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, Bhaggu Road, through its Estate Officer, Bathinda.
….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rajesh Dhir, aged about 52 years, son of Kuldeep Chander Dhir, R/o J P Nagar, Behind Little Angels Schools, Faridkot. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
26.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridkot.
45) First Appeal No.233 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022
21
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Kamlesh Rani W/o Bhuvnesh Aggarwal, Resident of House No.1120, Sector-2, Panchkula, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
46) First Appeal No.234 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Peeyush S/o Ishwar Dass, R/o 80-N, Model Town, Near Astha Hospital, Hisar Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
47) First Appeal No.236 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
22
Raj Kumar S/o Baru Ram, R/o Gali No.5, Partap Nagar, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
48) First Appeal No.249 of 2022 Date of institution : 29.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ram Gopal S/o Hardwari Lal, R/o Shop No.51, Grain Market, Bareta, Distt. Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
49) First Appeal No.183 of 2022 Date of institution : 10.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ankit Aran S/o Sh. Ashok Aran, R/o House No.210-B, Model Town, Mandi Adampur, Hissar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
23
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
50) First Appeal No.317 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.04.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Ankit Aran S/o Sh. Ashok Aran, resident of House No.210-B, Model Town, Mandi Adampur, Hissar, Haryana.
….Appellant/ Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite Party
51) First Appeal No.184 of 2022 Date of institution : 10.03.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ankit Aran S/o Sh. Ashok Aran, R/o House No.210-B, Model Town, Mandi Adampur, Hissar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
23.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
52) First Appeal No.318 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.04.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022
24
Ankit Aran S/o Sh. Ashok Aran, resident of House No.210-B, Model Town, Mandi Adampur, Hissar, Haryana.
….Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
23.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
53) First Appeal No.71 of 2022 Date of institution : 01.02.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Pawan Kumar S/o Mange Ram, R/o 473/9, Krishan Chand Colony, Tohana, District Fatehbad, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
54) First Appeal No.320 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.04.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Pawan Kumar S/o Mange Ram, Resident of 473/9, Krishan Chand Colony, Tohana, District Fatehbad, Haryana. ….Appellant/Complainant
Versus
25
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
29.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
55) First Appeal No.112 of 2022 Date of Institution : 18.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
1. Barinder Singh S/o Jasvir Singh R/o # B-21, 11282, Partap Nagar, Street No.4, Ludhiana.
2. Gurminder Singh S/o Jasvir Singh R/o # B-21, 11282, Partap Nagar, Street No.4, Ludhiana.
…..Respondents/Complainants
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
56) First Appeal No.44 of 2022 Date of Institution : 20.01.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022
1. Barinder Singh S/o Jasvir Singh R/o #B-21, 11282, Partap Nagar, Street No.4, Ludhiana.
2. Gurminder Singh S/o Jasvir Singh R/o #B-21, 11282, Partap Nagar, Street No.4, Ludhiana.
……Appellants/Complainants
Versus
26
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road Bhatinda through its Estate Officer. Email:helpdesk@puda.gov.in
…..Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
57) First Appeal No.296 of 2022 Date of institution : 19.04.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. ….Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Satyawan S/o Om Parkash, Resident of Chhotu Ram Colony, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against order dated
18.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
58) First Appeal No.319 of 2022 Date of institution : 28.04.2022 Date of decision : 13.07.2022 Satyawan S/o Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of Chhotu Ram Colony, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, Haryana.
….Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite Party
27
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa. Cases pertaining to 1stand 2nd Allottee with 12% interest and consolidated compensation/costs as awarded by the District Commission
59) First Appeal No.318 of 2021 Date of Institution : 09.09.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ms. Surekha wife of Shri Rantej Paul, resident of House No.34, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
28.04.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
60) First Appeal No.408 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sukriti daughter of Tara Chand, resident of House No.653, Sector 40- A, Chandigarh.
28
…..Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 31.03.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
61) First Appeal No.411 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Gobinder Singh son of Surjit Singh, resident of V&PO Datewas, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
22.01.2021 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
62) First Appeal No.412 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ashok Kumar son of Chiranji Lal, resident of House No.9/140, Telephone Exchange Street, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
29
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 11.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
63) First Appeal No.413 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Prabhjot Singh Sahni son of Charanjit Singh, resident of House No.1, Ward No.5, Railway Road, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
16.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
64) First Appeal No.418 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Narender Gupta son of Jawala Parshad Gupta, resident of House No.2A, Agarsain Colony, Hisar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
30
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 16.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
65) First Appeal No.419 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sarvan Kumar son of Aatma Ram, resident of House No.296, Neem Street, Tehsil and District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
22.01.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
66) First Appeal No.424 of 2021 Date of Institution : 24.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Pawan Kumar son of Bhag Chand, resident of Ward No.8, Bhikhi Road, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
31
24.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
67) First Appeal No.425 of 2021 Date of Institution : 24.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sunil Kumar Kaushik son of Janak Raj, resident of III W-S, Central School Street, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
11.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
68) First Appeal No.426 of 2021 Date of Institution : 24.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Tarun Kumar son of Laxmi Narain, resident of Bharat Cinema Street, Ward No.3, Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
24.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
32
69) First Appeal No.427 of 2021 Date of Institution : 24.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Jarnail Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of village Ralli, PO Datewas, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
22.01.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
70) First Appeal No.429 of 2021 Date of Institution : 24.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Harpreet Singh son of Narinder Singh, resident of House No.3039, First Floor, Sector -71, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 160071. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
16.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
71) First Appeal No.430 of 2021
33
Date of Institution : 24.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Pawan Kumar Goyal son of Sohan Lal Goyal, resident of Street No.5/2, Near Super Market, Raman, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
24.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
72) First Appeal No.432 of 2021 Date of Institution : 25.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Jasvir Kaur, aged about 58 years, widow of late Sh.Gurcharan Singh, resident of Village and Office Bareh, Budhlada, District Mansa. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
11.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
73) First Appeal No.433 of 2021
34
Date of Institution : 25.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rajinder Singh son of Birsal Singh, resident of village Bir Babran, PO Julan, District Hissar, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
22.01.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
74) First Appeal No.434 of 2021 Date of Institution : 25.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Jaspal Kaur wife of Chirinjeev Singh, resident of Village Gandhu Khurd, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
24.02.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
75) First Appeal No.60 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022
35
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Tarsem Lal S/o Amar Chand Gupta R/o House No.249, Santokhpura, Near Water Tank, Tehsil & Distt. Jalandhar. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
OTHER CROSS APPEALS (DISMISSED):
76) First Appeal No.416 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sunder Lal son of Siri Ram, resident of Bhawani General Store, Choti Mandi Cheeka, District Kaithal, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
77) First Appeal No.459 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Sunder Lal S/o Siri Ram R/o Bhawani General Store, Choti Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
36
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 07.04.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
78) First Appeal No.428 of 2021 Date of Institution : 24.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Sunita wife of Rajeev Gupta, resident of House No.216, Sanjay College, Ward No.7, Mandi Cheeka, District Kaithal, Haryana. …..Respondent/Complainant
79) First Appeal No.460 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Sunita W/o Rajeev Gupta R/o House No.216, Sanjay Collage, Ward No.7, Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana). ……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
37
07.04.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
80) First Appeal No.64 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rajinder Kumar S/o Charanji Lal R/o House No.98, R-II, Ward No.7, Mandi Cheeka, Kaithal, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
81) First Appeal No.456 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Rajinder Kumar S/o Charanji Lal R/o House No.98, R-II, Ward No.7, Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer.
…..Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
82) First Appeal No.65 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022
38
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Gora Lal S/o Suresh Kumar C/o Bhawani General Store, Choti Mandi Cheeka, Kaithal, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
83) First Appeal No.457 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Gora Lal S/o Suresh Kumar C/o Bhawani General Store, Choti Mandi, Cheeka, District Kaithal (Haryana).
……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer.
…..Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
84) First Appeal No.68 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rakesh Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o House No.74/11, Anand Colony, Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana. …..Respondent/Complainant
39
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
85) First Appeal No.458 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Rakesh Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar R/o House No.74/11, Anand Colony, Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
CROSS APPEALS (ENHANCEMENT)
86) First Appeal No.455 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Manu Tripathi W/o Parkash Chander Trivedi R/o Vikramjeet Singh J.E., Bunty M.C. Street, Ward No.3, Budhlada, Distt. Mansa. ……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer. …..Respondent/Opposite party
40
87) First Appeal No.58 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Manu Tripathi W/o Parkash Chander Trivedi R/o Vikramjeet Singh JE, Bunty MC Street, Ward No.3, Tehsil Budhlada, Mansa. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
88) First Appeal No.43 of 2022 Date of Institution : 20.01.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Mohinder Singh Sachdeva S/o Basant Singh Sachdeva R/o H.No.35/5, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road Bhatinda through its Estate Officer. Email:helpdesk@puda.gov.in.
…..Respondent/Opposite party
89) First Appeal No.414 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.11.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.
41
……Appellant/Opposite Party Versus
Mohinder Singh Sachdeva son of Basant Singh Sachdeva, resident of House No.35/5, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. …..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
05.04.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
90) First Appeal No.453 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Abhishek Jindal S/o Fakir Chand C/o Jindal Shoe Palace, Choti Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer.
…..Respondent/Opposite party
91) First Appeal No.67 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Abhishek Jindal S/o Fakir Chand C/o Jindal Shoe Palace, Choti Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
42
29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
92) First Appeal No.454 of 2021 Date of Institution : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Gian Chand S/o Shri Ram C/o Bhawani Fashion Wear, Choti Mandi Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal, through its LR Robin Singla S/o Late Sh.Gian Chand R/o Kaithal (Haryana)
……Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through Estate Officer.
…..Respondent/Opposite party
93) First Appeal No.63 of 2022 Date of Institution : 01.02.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer. ……Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Gian Chand S/o Shri Ram C/o Bhawani Fashion Wear, Choti Mandi Cheeka, Kaithal, Haryana.
…..Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.10.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
43
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
Present (F.A. No.410 of 2021):-
For the appellant : Sh. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Deepak Kansal, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
By this common order of ours, the aforementioned 93 (Ninety Three) First Appeals shall be disposed of as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals. The appellants in all the appeals are aggrieved by the similar orders passed by the District Commissions, as mentioned above. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.410 of 2021. Some of the additional facts and issues have been mentioned in other appeals but the same have not been discussed in this appeal i.e. F.A. No.410 of 2021 as the relevancy of those facts/issues is in those appeals only. Therefore, the relevant facts/issues have been mentioned/discussed in those appeals separately. First Appeal No.410 of 2021
Appellant/opposite party i.e. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Bathinda Development Authority) PUDA/BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda has approached this Commission by way of filing present appeal under Section 41 of the
44
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant-Ajaib Singh was partly accepted/allowed with consolidated amount of ₹15,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹17,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of the plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018 (Ex.C-5). The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the complainant Ajaib Singh in the complaint filed by him before the District Commission are that the appellant/opposite party launched a Scheme for allotment of plots by way of draw of lots at 'PUDA Enclave', Budhlada, District Mansa. The complainant applied for allotment of a residential plot measuring 300 sq.yds. and deposited an amount of ₹1,80,000/- being 10% of the total price of the plot as
45
earnest money. The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013, wherein the complainant was declared successful. Thereafter, the Letter of Intent (hereinafter to be referred as "LoI") was issued to the complainant on 26.02.2013, wherein certain terms and conditions were mentioned. Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of ₹2,70,000/- being the next instalment of 15% towards the sale consideration of the plot. Subsequently, the allotment letter dated 08.09.2016 was issued to the complainant, whereby plot No.997 measuring 300 sq.yds. was allotted to him with certain terms and conditions as reflected therein. In compliance of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant deposited the entire balance amount of ₹12,85,000/- with the opposite party after taking discount of 5% on full payment made through Bank, vide receipt dated 07.11.2016. Subsequently, due to reshuffling of allotment, the complainant was allotted plot No.702 of the same dimensions vide letter dated 17.01.2018 in place of earlier plot No.997. The complainant was also informed about the change in the number of plot vide letter dated 08.02.2018 and was also informed regarding giving of possession. However, no consent of the complainant was taken before changing the number of the plot.
4. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter/Scheme, the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the complainant/allottee on completion of development works at the site or
46
18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, whichever was earlier. However, the site was not fully developed.
5. Finding a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the appellant/opposite party, the complaint was filed with the averments that the plot allotted to the complainant was changed without his consent and the opposite party failed to complete the development works at site within the stipulated period and the basic amenities were not provided. The possession was also not handed over within the undertaken period. The complaint was filed before the District Commission for issuance of directions to the opposite party to refund the amount so deposited by the complainant and also to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. The compensation of ₹1 lac was also sought along with the litigation expenses to the tune of ₹50,000/-.
6. In response to notice issued by the District Commission, the appellant/opposite party appeared and filed reply, wherein certain legal objections were raised relating to the period of limitation, change of plot and also the issue of providing basic amenities. It was also mentioned in the reply that there was an Arbitration Clause in the allotment letter, debarring the jurisdiction of the District Commission. It was further mentioned in the reply that the tentative price of the plot was ₹18 lac. The complainant paid only ₹4,50,000/-, which was 25%
47
of the total price of the plot. He did not pay any instalment of remaining 75% of the price of the plot as per the payment schedule as mentioned in the allotment letter. The first instalment was required to be paid on 17.08.2017 and the remaining instalments were required to be paid after every 6 months from the date of first instalment. The plot was allotted to the complainant on 'as is where is basis'. It was also mentioned in the reply that the opposite party had already completed the development works at the site since long and also provided all the basic amenities. Even the possession of plots had been delivered to all the allottees, including the complainant. Neither the complainant ever requested for refund of the deposited amount, nor he was entitled to any refund. As such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite party.
7. On appreciation of the contents of the complaint and by considering the reply filed by the appellant/opposite party, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 05.04.2021 by awarding consolidated amount of ₹15,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹17,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of the plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018 (Ex.C-5). The
48
compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
8. Said order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the appellant/opposite party by way of filing the present appeal by raising a number of arguments.
9. There was a delay of 171 days in filing of the appeal. Misc. Application No.1293 of 2021 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. By considering the averments made in the application, the same was allowed vide order dated 02.12.2021 and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
10. Mr. L.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submits that the contention of the respondent/complainant with regard to illegal change of number of the plot is wrong, as reshuffling of allotment was done due to technical reasons and the complainant was re-allotted the plot No.702 which was of the same dimensions of the earlier plot. The complainant was also informed regarding change of number of plot vide letter dated 08.02.2018. Even he was informed regarding giving of possession and for said purpose, special camps were also organized on different dates but the complainant failed to take the possession within the specified time.
11. Learned counsel further submits that after obtaining the requisite sanctions from various Branches, the complainant was informed through said letter stating that all the development activities
49
at the site had been completed. There was no provision for refund of the amount with interest. A meeting was held on 28.06.2019 under the Presidentship of Additional Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, wherein it was decided that in case the allottees had demanded refund of the amount, the same be refunded without any deduction and without interest.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the interest at the rate of 9% awarded by the District Commission is not only illegal and arbitrary but it is on higher side also. It has further been argued that as per the terms and conditions as mentioned in the allotment letter, the allottee was not entitled to claim damages in case there was a delay in implementation of the Scheme. The plot was allotted on 'as is where is basis' and the development works were completed at the site. The possession of the plot was also delivered to the complainant within a period of 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. There is no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the opposite party. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has relied upon following cases in support of his contentions:
i) Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd (S) v. Charanjeet Singh (S). No.7042 of 2019 decided on 22.07.2021 (Supreme Court); and
ii) F.A. No.1703 of 2019 (CA PUDA & Anr. v. Manju Chauhan) decided vide order dated 12.02.2020 (NC);
13. Mr. Deepak Kansal, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the complainant had already paid
50
100% sale price of the plot by availing rebate of 5% on total sale price of the plot. However, the opposite party had failed to complete the development works at the site and to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period as per terms of the allotment letter. The possession of the plot was to be delivered on receiving 25% of the price of the plot within 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or on completion of development works at the site, but the opposite party has failed to do so. Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party unilaterally changed the location and number of the plot earlier allotted to him vide letter dated 08.02.2018 and allotted new plot which was contrary to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. However, no individual notice was given to the complainant before changing location/number of the earlier plot allotted to him. At the end, learned counsel submits that due to default on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by him, along with interest and compensation. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has relied upon following cases in support of his contentions:
i) Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghvan 2019 (2) CPJ 34 (Supreme Court);
ii) DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association CA-3864-3889 of 2020 decided vide order dated 14.12.2020;
51
iii) Ram Kishan & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. CWP No.4108 of 2016 decided on 22.11.2016 (Punjab and Haryana High Court);
iv) Bathinda Development Authority (PUDA) v. Gurdas Singh RP No.11 of 2016 decided vide order dated 17.12.2019 (NC);
v) Dwarkadhish Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushila Kataria RP No.3558 of 2011 decided vide order dated 27.03.2012 (NC);
vi) Sangeeta Aggarwal v. M/s Chitels India Pvt. Ltd. CC-2562 of 2018 decided vide order dated 27.05.2022 (NC);
vii) Jagpreet Singh Sarai v. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. CC No.72 of 2017 decided vide order dated 04.01.2017 (State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh).
14. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, written arguments filed on behalf the parties and all other documents available on the file.
15. As far as the other objection of the appellant/opposite party as raised in its reply regarding limitation is concerned, admittedly the complainant paid the substantial amount towards the price of the plot, in question, to the opposite party but neither the legal and actual possession of the plot with complete development/infrastructure has been delivered to him till date nor the amount so deposited by him has been refunded.
16. It is now well settled that in such cases there is a continuous cause of action till the possession is delivered or the amount is refunded. Hon'ble National Commission in the case of
"Navin Sharma (Dr.) & others v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd.
52
& Anr." 2016(2) CLT 457 has held that unless or until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. Para 8 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"8. The first submission made by the counsel for the opposite party was that the case is barred by time. This argument was raised merely for the sake of cavil. It is now well settled that unless or until the complainants get the possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. This view finds support from this authority reported in "Raghava Estates Ltd.
v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association" Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012."
17. In another case Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. M/s Unitech Ltd. 2015 (3) CPJ 440 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held in Para-17 as follows:
"17. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the last date stipulated in the buyers agreement for giving possession of the flat to them expired more than two years ago, the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is now settled legal proposition that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to him the buyers can always approach a Consumer Forum. It is only when the seller flatly refuses to give possession that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act would begin to run. In that case, the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the seller refuses to deliver possession of the flats to the complainants at any point of time and, therefore, the cause of action continues to subsist in favour of the complainants. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such a case the buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non- delivery of possession of the plot."
53
18. In the present case also, there is no denial on the part of the opposite party to deliver the possession. Since neither the actual and legal possession with complete development/infrastructure has been delivered nor the amount deposited by the complainant has been refunded till date, so in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, it is a continuous cause of action and the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation.
19. The other objection of the appellant/opposite party is that as per Arbitration Clause in the allotment letter, the matter between the parties is liable to be resolved only through arbitration. It is relevant to mention here that the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble 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., has held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore- stated kind of Agreements between the complainant(s) and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora/Commission 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 Hon'ble National Commission has also been dismissed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. Even the 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 has also
54
been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.12.2018. Therefore, the existence of an Arbitration Clause in the allotment letter is not a bar to resolve the dispute involved in this appeal by this Commission.
20. Further objection of the appellant/opposite party that complicated question of facts and laws are involved in the case is also not acceptable, as it is a simple dispute of allotment of the plot and non-delivery of possession thereof and it can easily be decided on the basis of evidence available on the record, for which no detailed evidence is required.
21. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly the complainant applied for allotment of a plot in the aforesaid Scheme launched by the opposite party. The complainant was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 15.01.2013. Thereafter, the Letter of Intent (LoI) (Ex.C-1) was issued to the complainant on 26.02.2013, wherein the tentative price of the plot was mentioned as ₹18 lac. Thereafter, allotment letter dated 08.09.2016 (Ex.C-3) was issued after a long delay of more than 3 and a half years from the date of issuance of the LoI, whereby the complainant was allotted plot No.997 measuring 300 sq.yds. in 'PUDA Enclave' Sugar Mill Site, Budhlada Urban Estate, Bathinda. The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹17,35,000/- towards the price of the plot vide receipt dated 07.11.2016 (Ex.C-4) and as per Clause-1(I) of the allotment letter
55
(Ex.C-3). Various terms and conditions as well as payment schedule were incorporated in the allotment letter. As per Clause 4(I) of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be delivered on completion of development works at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, whichever was earlier. Clause 4(I) of the allotment letter is reproduced as under:
"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 taken by the allottee within stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of said date."
22. The appellant/opposite party has raised certain objections in the reply filed before the District Commission as well as in the arguments that offer of possession of changed plot was given to the complainant vide letter dated 08.02.2018 (Ex.C-5) within the stipulated period.
23. On perusal of above said letter, it is evident that the opposite party changed the location and number of the plot earlier allotted to the complainant and allotted new plot No.702 but with the same terms and conditions as of earlier allotment letter. It is also mentioned in said letter that due to technical reasons and for betterment, the draw of lots was again held on 17.01.2018 and as per re-planning, the plot No.702 was allotted to the complainant. However, it has not been disclosed as to what technical reasons forced the opposite party to change the number and location of the plot.
56
Furthermore, no notice was given to the complainant individually nor his consent was obtained before conducting the 2nd draw on 17.01.2018. Although, the opposite party has produced a copy of notice published in the newspaper and details of mobile numbers on which they allegedly sent messages regarding change of plot, but a written notice was required to be issued to the complainant/allottee individually before effecting any change in the number or location of the plot, so that the allottee could have made up his/her mind for such a situation. Therefore, the re-allotment of the plot was done in the absence of the complainant, which is wrong, illegal and against the terms of LoI/allotment letter.
24. The appellant/opposite party has produced on record the copies of photographs [Ex.OP-1 (colly.)] before the District Commission and alleged that all the development works/activities were completed at the site. The opposite party has also alleged that the possession of changed plot was offered already delivered to the complainant vide letter dated 08.02.2018. However, no evidence showing receipt of actual, physical and legal possession of the plot has been produced by the opposite party on record. Even on perusal of letter dated 11.04.2019 (Ex.C-6) which has been issued by Sub Divisional Engineer, PUDA, Bathinda, it is clear that the provision of raw water at the site of the project in question was not made/available for want of requisite approvals. Further, on perusal of letter dated
57
21.02.2019 (Ex.C-7) issued by Divisional Engineer, BDA, Bathinda, it is evident that that the work of boundary wall of the project is still pending towards Budhlada side due to dispute with the farmers. Perusal of letter dated 09.10.2019 produced during the course of arguments shows that the complete development works were not completed. It is further mentioned in the said letter that since the project has not been completed in all respects, so the penal interest to be charged from the allottees was waived of.
25. From perusal of above said evidence, it is clear that the project in question was not complete in all respects up to 09.10.2019. Even otherwise also, Section 14 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA") deals with responsibility of the builder/promoter to obtain Completion from the competent Authority. The same is reproduced as under:
14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-
(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and
(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5.
(2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the
58
compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate."
26. Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07thJuly, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing) is also applicable to the properties falling within the Municipal Limits. The same is reproduced as under:
"No person shall occupy or allow other person to occupy any new building or part of a new building for any purpose whatsoever until such building or part thereof has been certified by the local authority or of any person authorized by it in this behalf to be in every respect completed according to the sanctioned plan and fit for the use for which it is erected."
27. Further, Section 272 of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 is also relevant in this context, which reads as under:-
"272. Completion Certificate. -
(1) Every person who employs a licensed architect or engineer or a person approved by the Commissioner to design or erect a building or execute any work shall, within one month after the completion of the erection of the building or execution of the work, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner a notice in writing of such completion accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed by byelaws, made in this behalf and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such building or work.
(2) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or use or permit to be used any building or a part thereof effected by any such work until permission has been granted by the Commissioner in this behalf in accordance with bye-laws made under this Act: Provided that if the Commissioner fails within a period of thirty days after the receipt of the notice of completion to
59
communicate his refusal in grant such permission, shall be deemed to have been granted."
28. The Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra) decided on 13.06.2018 has categorically held that the legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of Completion Certificate issued by the Competent Authority. Relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para No.5 is reproduced as under:
5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the completion certificate in respect of the project was obtained by the appellant on 15.03.2016. A copy of the communication dated 15.03.2016 from Municipal Council, Kharar has been placed on record. It is therefore, evident that the completion certificate having been received only on 15.03.2016, the appellant could not have offered legal possession of the apartment to the complainant at any time before that date. As noted earlier, the amount of Rs.1,81,375/- was demanded on 20.04.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,12,489/- was demanded on 06.02.2016. The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of the flat. The said offer of possession was meaningless being unlawful as the requisite completion certificate had not been obtained by that date……."
29. Further the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of
"Suman Kumar Jha & another Vs. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd." CC No.54/2018, decided on 29.10.2021, has held that the offering of possession of incomplete construction/unit/plot without obtaining Completion Certificate amounts to 'unfair trade practice'.
60
30. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that in absence of Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority, the alleged offer of possession and that too of changed plot was just a paper transaction and nothing more than that. The copies of photographs, Ex.OP-1 (colly.), which were produced by the opposite party before the District Commission, are also of no help to them in absence of Completion/Occupation Certificates. Since there was no development at the site, so the complainant cannot also not be blamed for withholding payment of further instalments.
31. It is also relevant 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,-
61
(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."
32. On perusal of the "Objects and Functions" as reproduced above, it is clear that 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, PUDA is required to prepare a proper Scheme, in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995. All the financial implications and other things should have been taken care by PUDA while launching the said scheme. After considering the pros and cons, the Scheme is required to be launched by the development authority being a public authority. By considering/seeing all the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the complainant had applied for allotment of a plot. However, the opposite party has failed to develop the plot allotted to him and even changed the said plot with new plot, without issuing any notice to him. The opposite party has also failed to complete the
62
development works within the agreed period and without any sufficient reason. This act of the opposite party has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
33. It is also relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) has issued strict directions to the States of Punjab and Haryana for launching the Scheme without proper guidelines and for not completing the same as per the time schedule. The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para-9 is reproduced as under:
"9. Before parting with the order, it is observed that this court is flooded with huge litigation of such like disputes, where allotments of plots/booth sites, commercial sites, have been made by the respective Governments of the States of Punjab and Haryana, including their Corporations; government undertakings, like HUDA and PUDA, without completing the development works and providing all basic amenities and facilities. Such action of the Government is not only a disadvantage to the Government itself, but also to the public at large, who has to indulge in litigation and spend valuable time of their lives, hard earned money and energy in the courts for years. The time has now come that such type of actions of the Government to allot sites without making the same litigation free and without completing the development works and providing all basic amenities and facilities, have to be curbed down, because such actions lead to multifarious litigation wasting precious time and energy of the court, which can be utilised in disposal of some genuine litigation. Such casual approach of the concerned officers has to be dealt with severely. Therefore, Chief Secretaries of the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as Adviser to Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, are hereby directed to ensure that no government site or site through any government agency shall be offered by way of allotment, auction or otherwise, until and unless the same is completely litigation free, i.e. without any encumbrance etc., and is fully developed, provided with all basic amenities. Moreover, all the allottees have to be treated on parity without
63
any discrimination, because every citizen of this country before Government functionaries is equal before it."
34. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, a meeting was held on 02.01.2017, in which Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab; Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab; Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar; Addl. Secretary, Local Govt. Department, Punjab; and General Manager, Estate, Punjab Mandi Board were present. After consideration, the following decisions were taken:
""After consideration, it has been decided to frame policy according to the directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. As under, following policy will be applicable to all the departments i.e. Local Govt., Punjab Mandi Board, PUDA and all other Special Authorities, PSIEC, Colonization Department and other agencies where the lands are being sold after planning:
1. Chunk Site: Chunk site will be sold on "as is where is"
basis". The Authority/Department making this sale will have to ensure that proper connectivity or availability of basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, roads, parking etc. are available. In case such provision has to be made entirely by the purchaser, it must be mentioned specifically at the time of sale.
2. Sale by Auction of Booth, SCO, SCF and other commercial sites, where development is to be done by the auctioning authority:- in such cases the auctioning authority will ensure that no site should be put to auction until and unless all the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, roads, parking & provision of proper Electronic connection is made available at site.
3. In case the site to be sold through draw of lots of the inviting application from public, the following policy must be followed:-
(i) Application must be invited only when the land is free from all encumbrances.
64
(ii) After the receipt of application with 10% of the sale price, the draw of lots will be held by the Authority/Deptt. In such cases after payment of 25% of the condition price, the LoI/Allotment letter will be issued to the successful applicant and no interest must be charged till the possession of that plot is given to the Allottee.
(iii) No possession in such cases must be given to allottee until and unless all the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, Roads, parking etc. wherever required is made.
(vi) The department Authority will duty bound to complete all the development works at site in shortest period possible not extending more than 18 months. In case of 18 months is elapsed and the possession in not handed over to the allottees, simple interest which of 12% will be provided to the allottee on the 25% amount which has been deposited by the Allottee with the Authority/Deptt.
All the conditions will be mentioned in the Brochure. As mentioned above it has been decided that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court be informed about the above said terms and conditions and further necessary action be taken to notify this policy according to the direction issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court."
35. From the above, it is apparent that the issue of launching plot/house allotment schemes by the Urban Development Authorities without preparing the proper guidelines and without completing the development activities had already been dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court and aforesaid decisions were taken to minimize the litigation in such like cases.
36. It is also relevant to mention here that in Consumer Complaint No.420 of 2018 (Usha Rani v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Anr.) decided by this Commission vide
65
order dated 11.09.2018, same project of the opposite party was involved. The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para No.12 is reproduced as under:
"To prove that the non-completion of development works at the site of the opposite parties, the complainant engaged Er. H.G. Ahuluwalia, B.Sc. (Engg.) Civil to visit the spot and to report regarding the development at the site. He visited the site on 04.05.2018 and after thorough inspection submitted his detailed report dated 18.05.2018, Ex.C/8, to the effect that the site of PUDA Enclave (Sugar Mill), Budhlada, District Mansa as on 04.05.2018 was not complete, the basic amenities were also not provided and the ancillary amenities did not exist at the site; as a result of which the site was not habitable.
………………………………………………………….
Perusal of above said report of the Civil Engineer proves that the developments works, as detailed therein, have not been completed in the project of the opposite parties and the site is not habitable. At the end of report, it has been opined that till the above said defects and shortcomings are not removed in their entirety, the entire colony is not fit for human habitation and any offer of possession made prior to the removal and rectification of the above said defects is a mere sham. To prove the above said shortcomings and defects in the colony of the opposite parties, as reported in the above said report, the Civil Engineer also produced photographs of the site, his affidavit dated 18.05.2018 as well as his qualifications."
37. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, it is clear that the appellant/opposite party had failed to deliver possession of the plot with complete infrastructure and basic and agreed amenities as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to 'deficiency in service'.
66
38. As far as the plea of the opposite party that the plot was allotted on 'as is where is basis' is concerned, it is relevant to mention that as per Clause-4(I) of the allotment letter clearly shows that the possession of the plot was to be delivered after completion of development works at the site or 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, whichever is earlier. Since the allotment letter itself says about completion of development works, so it cannot be said that the plot was allotted on 'as is where is basis'.
39. Since the actual, physical and legal possession of the plot was not delivered within the stipulated period as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, so the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him along with interest, compensation and costs, as awarded by the District Commission.
40. The District Commission while passing the impugned order has directed the appellant/opposite party to refund the amount so deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of interest 9% besides compensation and costs. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Gurdas Singh (supra), wherein the interest at the rate of 12% was held to be justified. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manju Chauhan (supra) and submitted that the rate of interest in the
67
said case was reduced from 12% to 6%. However, in the other authority relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party in the case of M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum has been held to be justified.
41. In view of the facts and circumstances, we find that the interest at the rate of 9% as awarded by the District Commission is reasonable and justified. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the said direction passed by the District Commission in F.A. No.410 of 2021.
42. In the appeals, wherein the complainants are the original allottees and the deposited amount has been ordered to be refunded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with compensation/costs or interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded on the refunded amounts with compensation/costs, are liable to be dismissed and the impugned orders passed in such cases, as detailed below, are liable to be upheld.
43. The appeals filed by PUDA, wherein the interest more than 9% per annum (such as 12% etc.) has been awarded, are liable to be partly allowed and the rate of interest is liable to be reduced from 12% to 9% per annum in those cases.
44. In some of the cases covered by this judgment, refund of the principal/deposited amount has already been made by the opposite party and the complainant(s) have filed the complaints for
68
seeking interest on the refunded amount etc. Therefore, it is made clear that even if the principal/deposited amount has already been refunded, even then the interest shall be payable on the refunded/principal/deposited amount along with other relief as awarded by the District Commission which is to be modified by this order in some of the cases.
45. In some of the appeals, the complainants are subsequent allottees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that in case of subsequent allottee/purchaser, the interest on the refundable amount is to be awarded from the date when the builder acquired knowledge of transfer or acknowledged the transfer. Relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Paras-31 & 32 is reproduced as under:
"31. In view of these considerations, this court is of the opinion that the per se bar to the relief of interest on refund, enunciated by the decision in Raje Ram (supra) which was applied in Wg. Commander Arifur Rehman (supra) cannot be considered good law. The nature and extent of relief, to which a subsequent purchaser can be entitled to, would be fact dependent. However, it cannot be said that a subsequent purchaser who steps into the shoes of an original allottee of a housing project in which the builder has not honoured its commitment to deliver the flat within a stipulated time, cannot expect any - even reasonable time, for the performance of the builder's obligation. Such a conclusion would be arbitrary, given that there may be a large number- possibly thousands of flat buyers, waiting for their promised flats or residences; they surely would be entitled to all reliefs under the Act. In such case, a purchaser who no doubt enters the picture later surely belongs to the same class. Further, the purchaser agrees to buy the flat with a reasonable expectation that delivery of possession would be in accordance within the bounds of the delayed timeline that he has knowledge of, at the time of purchase of the flat. Therefore, in the event the purchaser claims refund, on an assessment that he too can (like the original allottee) no longer wait, and face intolerable burdens, the equities would have to be moulded. It would no doubt be fair to assume that the purchaser had knowledge of the delay. However, to attribute
69
knowledge that such delay would continue indefinitely, based on an a priori assumption, would not be justified. The equities, in the opinion of this court, can properly be moulded by directing refund of the principal amounts, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer, or acknowledged it.
32. In the present case, there is material on the record suggestive of the circumstance that even as on the date of presentation of the present appeal, the occupancy certificate was not forthcoming. In these circumstances, given that the purchaser/respondent had stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, and intimated Laureate about this fact in April 2016, the interests of justice demand that interest at least from that date should be granted, in favour of the respondent. The directions of the NCDRC are accordingly modified in the above terms.
46. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case, in the cases of subsequent allottees the interest on the refundable amount is to be paid from the date when the opposite party acquired knowledge of transfer or acknowledged the transfer/allotment in favour of subsequent allottee. Meaning thereby the interest shall be paid from the date of transfer of plot/LoI etc. in favour of the subsequent allottees/complainants. In such cases, the appeals filed by the opposite party-PUDA are liable to be partly allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be modified.
47. In some of the cases, cross appeals have been filed by both the parties. In the appeals filed by the opposite party, the prayer has been made to set aside the impugned orders, whereas in the appeals filed by the complainants, the prayer has been made for enhancement of compensation already awarded by the District Commission.
48. In some of the appeals/cross appeals, there is some apparent error in the impugned order(s), such as some payment
70
receipt(s) has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders. In such cases, the appeals filed by the complainants for enhancement of compensation are liable to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be modified accordingly. However, in other appeals, no ground or justification has been made out to enhance the relief already awarded by the District Commission. Those appeals are liable to be dismissed.
49. In the cases, where the amount deposited by the complainant has not been mentioned in the impugned orders or not ordered to be refunded due to inadvertent mistake, the complainant(s) will be at liberty to move an appropriate application along with proof of deposit of amount and the same will be verified by the opposite party and will be refunded by the opposite party along with interest.
50. In most of the cases covered by this order, the initially allotted plots were changed with some other plot numbers. The transfer of plot/allotment/LoI may be prior to the date of issuance of allotment letters or LoI. Therefore, the interest shall be payable from the date of transfer of initial booking/LoI/plot etc.
51. In some of the cases, an objection has been raised by the opposite party that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints, on the ground that as per Section 174 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, the orders passed by the State Government of the Competent
71
Authority have become final and the same are not to be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. This plea of the opposite party has been dealt with by the District Commission in the impugned order in most of the cases. Even otherwise, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the District Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain and try such like cases.
52. In some of the appeals, there is delay in filing the appeals. Misc. Applications have been filed for condonation of delay, which are supported by affidavits.
53. In view of the reasons recorded in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay in filing those appeals is condoned.
54. Our categorized decision based summary of the cases is as under:
CASES PERTAINING TO ORIGINAL ALLOTTEES: REFUND WITH
9% INTEREST AND CONSOLIDATED COMPENSATION/COSTS AS
AWARDED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSION
1. First Appeal No.410 of 2021
55. This is the master case and its details have already been discussed at length as above.
56. In view of relevant discussion as held above, the First Appeal No.410 of 2021 is hereby dismissed and the impugned
72
order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is upheld.
57. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
2. First Appeal No.266 of 2022
58. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee and was allotted a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
59. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 24.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,85,003/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
73
60. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
61. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another sum of ₹3,31,570/- was deposited on 02.05.2022 in compliance of order dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Commission. Both these amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
3. First Appeal No.268 of 2022
62. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
63. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 16.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund
74
an amount of ₹3,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
64. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
65. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹3,47,815/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
4. First Appeal No.417 of 2021
66. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
67. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 15.04.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund
75
an amount of ₹3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
68. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
69. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
5. First Appeal No.61 of 2022
70. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
76
71. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him from the opposite party.
72. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
73. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹71,422/- was deposited on 21.03.2022 in compliance of order passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
6. First Appeal No.62 of 2022
74. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the
77
appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint. Said plot was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party along with interest. The opposite party alleged that the amount so deposited by the complainant was refunded but no refund order/cheque/DD has been produced on record.
75. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹8,84,250/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him from the opposite party.
76. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
77. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹95,119/- was deposited on 21.03.2022 in compliance of order passed by this Commission. Said
78
amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
7. First Appeal No.66 of 2022
78. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party along with interest. The opposite party alleged that the amount so deposited by the complainant was refunded but no refund order/cheque/DD has been produced on record.
79. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹6,00,000/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts
79
from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by her from the opposite party.
80. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
81. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹5,43,761/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
8. First Appeal No.70 of 2022
82. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
83. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and
80
compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹1,50,000/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by her from the opposite party.
84. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
85. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,37,065/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
9. First Appeal No.82 of 2022
86. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
81
87. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 04.10.2021 and the opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹12,62,625/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. A further direction was issued to the opposite party to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant and an amount of ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses.
88. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
89. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
10. First Appeal No.116 of 2022
90. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant
82
within the stipulated period. On request of the complainant, the amount deposited by him i.e. ₹6,30,000/- was refunded to him vide cheque dated 21.10.2020 as mentioned in Ex.C-9 but without any interest. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party to pay interest on the refunded amount etc.
91. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹6,30,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
92. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
93. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,90,984/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
83
11. First Appeal No.118 of 2022
94. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. Although the prayer was made in the complaint for refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. but the amount of ₹6,00,000/- deposited by the complainant was refunded to him through cheque No.263114 dated 30.03.2021 vide letter dated 31.03.2021, after filing of the complaint.
95. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹6,00,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
96. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
97. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,97,338/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the
84
registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
12. First Appeal No.119 of 2022
98. In this case, Sh. Naresh Kumar, the brother of the complainant was allotted a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party and LoI dated 26.02.2013 (Ex.C-1) was issued to him. Sh. Naresh Kumar died and the plot was transferred in the names of his father Sh. Som Lal and mother Smt. Raj Rani being nominees, vide letter dated 07.10.2016 (Ex.C-3). Later on, said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant vide letter dated 31.05.2017 (Ex.C-5) on the request letter sent by her father. Since it is transfer of plot within family members, so the complainant cannot be termed as subsequent allottee. She is considered to be the original allottee. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant made a request to refund the deposited amount along with interest. The opposite party refunded an amount of ₹29,93,600/- through cheque No.236594 dated 09.06.2020 vide letter Ex.C-9 but without any interest.
85
99. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹29,93,600/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
100. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
101. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹3,40,324/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
13. First Appeal No.215 of 2022
102. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The
86
opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
103. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹4,18,500/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
104. In this case, the complainant made prayer in the complaint to refund ₹4,18,500/- along with interest etc. In the reply, the opposite party alleged that the said amount was refunded through cheque No.990909 dated 19.10.2020 as per order dated 24.07.2020 but no documentary evidence was produced. Therefore, it is made clear that if the amount has been refunded, then the interest shall be payable on the refunded amount along with other relief as awarded by the District Commission.
105. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed, with above said observation, and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
87
106. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,04,918/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
14. First Appeal No.216 of 2022
107. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
108. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹4,61,500/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
88
109. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
110. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹91,677/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
15. First Appeal No.217 of 2022
111. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually.
112. The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹6 lac with the opposite party as is mentioned in Clause 3(I) of the allotment letter. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount so deposited along with interest etc. Thereafter, the opposite party refunded only ₹2,90,354/- vide order dated 02.07.2019 Ex.C-7 by illegally deducting 10% of the price of the plot etc. The complaint was
89
filed seeking refund of remaining amount along with interest @ 18% on the total deposited amount besides other reliefs.
113. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,09,646/- and to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount of ₹6 lac from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
114. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
115. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,23,061/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
16. First Appeal No.218 of 2022
116. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the
90
appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹7,50,000/- through cheque No.729738 dated 17.09.2020. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party to pay interest on the said amount.
117. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹7,50,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
118. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
119. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,59,609/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District
91
Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
17. First Appeal No.220 of 2022
120. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually.
121. The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹2,25,000/- with the opposite party as is mentioned in Clause 3(I) of the allotment letter. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount so deposited along with interest etc. Thereafter, the opposite party refunded only ₹1,14,465/- vide order dated 31.10.2018 by illegally deducting the remaining amount towards 10% of the price of the plot etc. The complaint was filed seeking refund of remaining amount along with interest on the total deposited amount besides other reliefs.
122. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹1,10,535/- and to pay interest at the rate of 9% per
92
annum on the total amount of ₹2,25,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
123. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
124. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹74,537/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
18. First Appeal No.221 of 2022
125. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
126. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and
93
compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹6,30,000/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
127. In the appeal, it has been submitted that the amount of ₹6,30,000/- has already been refunded to the complainant vide cheque no.263105 dated 30.03.2021 but no copy of said cheque has been produced. Even if the amount has been refunded, then also the opposite party is liable to pay interest as awarded by the District Commission.
128. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
129. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,22,123/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
94
19. First Appeal No.229 of 2022
130. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually.
131. The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹3,00,000/- with the opposite party as is mentioned in Clause 3(I) of the allotment letter. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount so deposited along with interest etc. Thereafter, the opposite party refunded only ₹1,65,145/- vide letter dated 16.11.2018 by illegally deducting the remaining amount towards 10% of the price of the plot etc. The complaint was filed seeking refund of remaining amount along with interest on the total deposited amount besides other reliefs.
132. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹1,34,855/- and to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount of ₹3,00,000/- from the date of receipts of
95
amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
133. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
134. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹84,045/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
20. First Appeal No.230 of 2022
135. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually.
136. The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹7,50,000/- with the opposite party as is mentioned in Clause 3(I) of the allotment letter. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount so
96
deposited along with interest etc. Thereafter, the opposite party refunded only ₹4,09,337/- vide letter dated 24.05.2018 by illegally deducting the remaining amount.
137. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,40,663/- and to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount of ₹7,50,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
138. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
139. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,02,608/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
21. First Appeal No.231 of 2022
97
140. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹5,78,210/- vide letter dated 10.02.2020 but without any interest.
141. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹5,78,210/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
142. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
143. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹77,941/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the
98
District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
22. First Appeal No.232 of 2022
144. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹1,50,000/- vide letter dated 22.10.2020 but without any interest.
145. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹1,50,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
99
146. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
147. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹53,744/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
23. First Appeal No.235 of 2022
148. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹17,21,660/- on 05.11.2020 but without any interest as per entry in the passbook Ex.C-
10.
149. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated
100
29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹17,21,660/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
150. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
151. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹3,26,950/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
24. First Appeal No.237 of 2022
152. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest
101
etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹1,50,000/- vide letter dated 14.02.2020 but without any interest.
153. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹1,50,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
154. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
155. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹48,968/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
25. First Appeal No.238 of 2022
156. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint, which was
102
later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹1,50,000/- vide letter dated 22.10.2020 but without any interest.
157. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹1,50,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
158. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is upheld.
159. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹53,744/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District
103
Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
26. First Appeal No.246 of 2022
160. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
161. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹5,58,000/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
162. In the appeal, it has been submitted that the amount of ₹5,58,000/- has already been refunded to the complainant vide cheque no.090644 dated 21.12.2020 but no copy of said cheque has been produced. Even if the amount has been refunded, then also the
104
opposite party is liable to pay interest as awarded by the District Commission.
163. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
164. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,44,713/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
27. First Appeal No.247 of 2022
165. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹5,58,000/- vide letter dated 12.06.2020 (Ex.C-8) but without any interest.
105
166. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹5,58,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
167. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
168. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹81,715/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
28. First Appeal No.248 of 2022
169. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all
106
respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹7,50,000/- vide cheque dated 04.02.2020 (Ex.C-8) but without any interest.
170. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹7,50,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
171. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
172. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹2,13,675/- was deposited on 07.04.2022 in compliance of order dated 01.04.2022 passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
107
29. First Appeal No.250 of 2022
173. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹2,25,000/- vide cheque dated 05.02.2020 (Ex.C-10) but without any interest.
174. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹2,25,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
175. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
176. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹47,730/- was deposited on 07.04.2022 in compliance of order dated 01.04.2022 passed by this
108
Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
30. First Appeal No.293 of 2022
177. In this case also, Sh. Sohan Lal Bansal, the father of the complainant was allotted a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. He executed a Will dated 06.09.2011 (Ex.C-2) in which he made his only son (complainant) as his nominee. The father of the complainant died on 23.07.2018 and his Death Certificate is Ex.C-1. By virtue of said Will, the rights over the plot allotted to the father of the complainant were acquired by the complainant and it cannot be treated as subsequent allotment. The complainant is considered as original allottee. Later on, said plot was changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
178. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund
109
the amount of ₹7,50,000/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual payment subject to return of possession of the plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
179. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
180. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹6,80,158/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
31. First Appeal No.295 of 2022
181. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest
110
etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹7,16,110/- vide cheque dated 04.02.2020 as per letter dated 07.02.2020 (Ex.C-13) but without any interest.
182. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 19.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹7,16,110/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
183. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
184. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
Cases Pertaining to Second/subsequent Allottee with 9% interest and consolidated Compensation/Costs as awarded by the District Commission:
32. First Appeal No.117 of 2022
111
185. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the subsequent allottee of a plot from in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as per the contents of the complaint. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. On request of the complainant, the amount deposited him i.e. ₹2,25,000/- was refunded to him vide cheque dated 17.06.2020 Ex.C-6 but without any interest. Thereafter, the complainant sent e-mail to the opposite party to pay interest on the refunded amount etc.
186. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹2,25,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
187. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of ₹2,25,000/- from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the
112
complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
188. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹51,431/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
33. First Appeal No.409 of 2021
189. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Raj Kumar. The plot was transferred in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 04.09.2013 (Ex.C-3). Later on, the plot was changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
190. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 05.04.2021 with consolidated of ₹2,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at
113
different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of the plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
191. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is hereby partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the deposited amount of ₹2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of transfer of the plot in favour of the complainant i.e. 04.09.2013 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
192. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
34. First Appeal No.490 of 2022
193. In the present case, the complainant is subsequent allottee as he purchased the plot from the earlier allottee Sh. Charan Singh but no date of transfer of the plot in favour of the complainant is
114
mentioned. Thereafter the allotment letter dated 19.09.2016 (Ex.C-1) was issued in his favour. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by him. The opposite party refunded an amount of ₹4,50,000/- vide cheque dated 21.05.2020 Ex.C-5.
194. Notice of appeal was sent to the respondent/complainant on 15.06.2022 through registered Post A.D. Neither the RCs nor ADs have been received back. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant to contest the appeal.
195. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 19.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹4,50,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
196. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹4,50,000/- from the date of transfer of the
115
LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
197. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,50,030/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
35. First Appeal No.415 of 2021
198. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Sh. Triloki Nath. Said plot was transferred in favour of the complainant vide letter on 31.07.2019 (Ex.C-5). In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹6,27,029/- was refunded to the complainant vide cheque 20.03.2020 through letter dated 12.03.2020 Ex.C-10.
199. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 15.04.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹6,27,029/- at the rate of 9% per annum
116
from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
200. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹6,27,029/- from the date of transfer of the plot in favour of the complainant i.e. 31.07.2019 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
201. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
36. First Appeal No.59 of 2022
202. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Sh. Jagbir Singh Jangra. Said plot was transferred in favour of the complainant vide letter on 05.11.2015 (Ex.C-5). In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited
117
amount of ₹2,79,000/- was refunded to the complainant vide cheque 05.02.2020 Ex.C-11.
203. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹2,79,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
204. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹2,79,000/- from the date of transfer of the plot/LoI in favour of the complainant i.e. 05.11.2015 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
205. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹37,501/- was deposited on 21.03.2022 in compliance of the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the
118
District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
37. First Appeal No.69 of 2022
206. In the present case, the complainant has purchased the plot the earlier allottee namely Ms. Suman Lata and transfer of the plot was effected in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 23.08.2013 (Ex.C-1).
207. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹16,65,003/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
208. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per
119
annum from the date of transfer of plot/LoI in favour of the complainant i.e. 23.08.2013 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
209. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹11,76,091/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
38. First Appeal No.110 of 2022
210. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Vinod Kumar to whom Letter of Intent was issued on 26.02.2013 but no date of transfer of plot in favour of the complainant is mentioned. The allotment letter dated 29.11.2016 (Ex.C-1) was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹2,25,000/- was refunded to the complainant vide cheque Ex.C-5 but without any interest.
211. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and
120
compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹2,25,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
212. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹2,25,000/- w.e.f. the date of transfer of initial plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
213. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹51,270/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
39. First Appeal No.111 of 2022
214. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Chhabil Singh, as per contents of
121
the complaint but no date of transfer is mentioned. The allotment letter dated 19.09.2016 (Ex.C-1) was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹4,50,000/- was refunded to the complainant vide cheque dated 21.05.2020 Ex.C-6 but without any interest.
215. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹4,50,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
216. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹4,50,000/- w.e.f. the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
217. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,24,919/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the
122
registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
40. First Appeal No.113 of 2022
218. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Sunil Kumari but no date of transfer of the plot is mentioned in the complaint. Allotment letter dated 18.10.2016 was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹3,85,005/- was refunded to the complainant vide cheque 21.05.2020 (Ex.C-6).
219. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹3,85,003/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
220. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party
123
shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹3,85,003/- from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
221. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,03,444/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
41. First Appeal No.114 of 2022
222. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Ramandeep Garg but no date of transfer of the plot is mentioned in the complaint. Allotment letter dated 20.09.2016 was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹4,50,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 13.07.2020 but without any interest.
223. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay
124
interest on the amount of ₹4,50,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
224. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹4,50,000/- from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
225. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,27,571/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
42. First Appeal No.115 of 2022
226. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Satish Kumar but no date of transfer of the plot is mentioned in the complaint. Allotment letter dated
125
19.09.2016 was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹4,50,000/- was refunded to the complainant through cheque dated 21.05.2020 but without any interest.
227. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹4,50,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
228. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹4,50,000/- from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
229. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,24,930/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The
126
respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
43. First Appeal No.185 of 2022
230. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Subash Garg as per contents of Para-2 of the complaint but no date of transfer of the plot is mentioned. Allotment letter dated 21.10.2016 was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹2,25,000/- was refunded to the complainant through cheque dated 17.06.2020 but without any interest.
231. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 12.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹1,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹2,25,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
232. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party
127
shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹2,25,000/- from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
233. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- plus ₹50,414/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
44. First Appeal No.208 of 2022
234. In the present case, the complainant has purchased the plot the earlier allottee namely Jagsir Singh as per contents of the complaint and later on the plot was transferred in favour of the complainant but no date of transfer is mentioned in the complaint.
235. Earlier the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.182 of 2017 before the District Commission which was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2018 and the opposite party was directed to hand over the possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant after completing development works in all respects within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order on receipt of remaining payment of
128
price of the plot, if any. The opposite party was further directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount already deposited by the complainant out of sale consideration from the date of payment till delivery of actual possession of the plot. An amount of ₹15,000/- was awarded towards compensation and ₹5,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is mentioned in Para-5 of the complaint that the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹1,30,500/- with the opposite party vide DDs No.153738, 155281 dated 25.02.2019 drawn on Axis Bank on account of balance instalment of the price of the plot. An Execution Application was filed before the District Commission, in which the opposite party made payment of interest to the complainant. However, the opposite party failed to comply with aforesaid directions issued by the District Commission. Neither any development was carried out at the site nor the possession of the plot was delivered. Therefore, the complainant had no option but to file the subsequent complaint (which is subject matter of the present appeal) seeking refund of an amount of ₹12,16,500/- along with interest etc. The complainant has every right to file subsequent complaint since the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot in compliance of earlier order.
236. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 26.10.2021 and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an
129
amount of ₹12,16,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the dates of payment till realization and also to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses.
237. In view of above discussion as well as the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. It is also made clear that the amount paid by the opposite party towards interest in execution proceedings shall be adjusted, if not already adjusted. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
238. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹7,76,324/- was deposited on 07.04.2022 in compliance of order dated 24.03.2022 passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
130
45. First Appeal No.233 of 2022
239. In the present case, the complainant has purchased the plot the earlier allottee namely Gurmail Ram as per contents of the complaint and transfer of the plot was effected in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 17.09.2013 (Ex.C-1).
240. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹6,00,000/- (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
241. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of transfer of the plot in favour of the complainant i.e. 17.09.2013 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
131
242. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹5,44,974/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
46. First Appeal No.234 of 2022
243. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Puja Garg as per contents of the complaint but no date of transfer of the plot is mentioned. Although, the allotment letter dated 10.10.2016 was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited amount of ₹1,50,000/- was refunded to the complainant vide letter dated 22.10.2020 Ex.C-5 but without any interest.
244. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹1,50,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
132
245. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹1,50,000/- from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
246. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹53,747/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
47. First Appeal No.236 of 2022
247. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Rishi Lal Tayal as per contents of the complaint but no date of transfer of the plot is mentioned. Although allotment letter dated 29.11.2016 was issued in favour of the complainant. In this case, on request of the complainant, the deposited
133
amount of ₹2,25,000/- was refunded to the complainant vide letter dated 22.10.2020 but without any interest.
248. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹2,25,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
249. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of ₹2,25,000/- from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
250. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹79,859/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the
134
appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
48. First Appeal No.249 of 2022
251. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee and was allotted a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party.
252. The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹6,00,000/- with the opposite party as is mentioned in Clause 3(I) of the allotment letter. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount so deposited along with interest etc. Thereafter, the opposite party refunded only ₹3,29,796/- vide letter dated 16.04.2018 (Ex.C-3) by illegally deducting the remaining amount towards 10% of the price of the plot etc.
253. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,29,796/- and to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount of ₹6,00,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
135
254. It is relevant to mention here that on perusal of letter dated 16.04.2018 (Ex.C-3) issued by Section Officer, PUDA, Bathinda to the complainant, it is clear that an amount of ₹3,29,796/- was refunded to him vide cheque No.044610 dated 16.04.2018. This fact is also evident from the contents of Para-8 of the complaint and Para-7 of reply of the opposite party on merits. However, the District Commission wrongly issued directions to refund the amount of ₹3,29,796/-. In fact, the direction for refund of the remaining amount of ₹2,70,204/- (₹6,00,000 minus ₹3,29,796/-) should have been issued instead of ₹3,29,796/-. This error in the impugned order is required to be modified.
255. In view of above discussion as well as the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that instead of ₹3,09,796/-, the opposite party shall refund an amount of ₹2,70,204/- and to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount of ₹6,00,000/- from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
256. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹2,52,579/- was deposited
136
on 07.04.2022 in compliance of order dated 01.04.2022. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
49. First Appeal No.183 of 2022 &
50. First Appeal No.317 of 2022 (Cross)
257. In this case also, the complainant was the subsequent allottee and purchased the plot from one Saroj Rani, as is evident from Para-1 of the complaint. Said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant vide allocation letter dated 19.07.2016, as is evident from Office Order dated 17.07.2020 Ex.C-8. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest. The opposite party vide Office Order dated 17.07.2020 Ex.C-8 offered to refund the deposited amount i.e. ₹2,79,000/- without any interest but no document has been produced to show that the said amount was actually refunded to the complainant. However, a total sum of ₹2,79,350/- was deposited as has been admitted by the opposite party in its reply.
137
258. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 23.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the entire deposited amount of ₹2,97,350/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of the plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
259. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.183 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is partly allowed and the impugned order passed in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the amount of ₹2,97,350/- ( if not already refunded) shall be refunded along with interest at the 9% per annum from the date of transfer of the plot/allotment in favour of the complainant i.e. 19.07.2016 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.317 of 2022 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation already awarded by the District Commission is dismissed.
260. In F.A. No.183 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹84,041/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by
138
the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
51. First Appeal No.184 of 2022 &
52. First Appeal No.318 of 2022 (Cross)
261. In this case also, the complainant was the subsequent allottee and purchased the plot from one Anil Kumar, as is evident from Para-1 of the complaint. Said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant vide allocation letter dated 28.06.2014, as is evident from Office Order dated 17.07.2020 Ex.C-8. Later on, the plot allotted to the complainant was changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest. The opposite party vide Office Order dated 17.07.2020 Ex.C-8 ordered for refund of the deposited amount i.e. ₹5,85,900/- without any interest.
262. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 23.11.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund
139
the entire deposited amount of ₹5,85,900/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of the plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
263. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.184 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is partly allowed and the impugned order passed in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable on the refundable amount from the date of transfer of the plot/allotment in favour of the complainant i.e. 28.06.2014 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.318 of 2022 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation already awarded by the District Commission is dismissed.
264. In F.A. No.184 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,39,993/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission
140
may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
53. First Appeal No.71 of 2022 &
54. First Appeal No.320 of 2022 (Cross)
265. In this case also, the complainant was the subsequent allottee and purchased the plot from one Bansari Devi, as is evident from the contents of the complaint. Said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant but no date of transfer is mentioned. Later on, the plot allotted to the complainant was changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
266. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the entire deposited amount of ₹1,35,000/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of the plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party.
267. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.71 of 2022 filed by the opposite
141
party is partly allowed and the impugned order passed in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the amount shall be refunded along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.320 of 2022 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation already awarded by the District Commission is dismissed.
268. In F.A. No.71 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹28,744/- was deposited in compliance of order dated 04.02.2022 passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
55. First Appeal No.112 of 2022 &
56. First Appeal No.44 of 2022 (Cross)
269. In this case also, the complainants were the subsequent allottee and they purchased the plot from one Manoj Jain, as is evident from the contents of the complaint. Said plot was transferred in
142
the name of the complainants vide letter dated 24.07.2017 (Ex.C-1). Later on, the plot allotted to the complainants was changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to them individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainants wrote a letter to the opposite party to refund the deposited amount with interest. The opposite party refunded an amount of ₹9,68,284/- vide cheque No.236558 dated 19.03.2020 through letter Ex.C-8.
270. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹9,68,284/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
271. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.112 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is partly allowed and the impugned order passed in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the interest on the refunded amount shall be paid from the date of transfer of the plot/allotment in favour of the complainant i.e. 24.07.2017 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.44 of 2022 filed by
143
the complainants for enhancement of compensation already awarded by the District Commission is dismissed.
272. In F.A. No.112 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,26,488/- plus ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹86,859/- was deposited in compliance of order dated 22.02.2022 passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
57. First Appeal No.296 of 2022 &
58. First Appeal No.319 of 2022
273. In the present case, the complainant has purchased the plot the earlier allottee namely Manoj Kumar as per contents of the complaint and later on the plot was transferred in favour of the complainant. Although allotment letter dated 10.10.2016 is available on record, but the date of transfer of plot is not mentioned in the complaint.
274. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 18.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and
144
compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹4,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
275. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, the First Appeal No.296 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.319 of 2022 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation already awarded by the District Commission is dismissed.
276. In First Appeal No.296 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹89,381/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order
145
and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. Cases pertaining to 1stand 2nd Allottee with 12% interest and consolidated compensation/costs as awarded by the District Commission:
59. First Appeal No.318 of 2021
277. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the complaint. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant deposited an amount of ₹4,26,250/- with the opposite party. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest etc. The opposite party refunded an amount ₹2,38,269/- vide cheque No.044779 dated 15.02.2019 through letter dated 21.02.2019 (Ex.OP-
14) by forfeiting 10% of the total sale price of the plot. In the appeal the appellant/opposite party has produced additional evidence to show that works of HT/LT and streetlights, public health, civil wing, roadside plantation etc. have been completed in the year 2021. However, as per Clause 4(I) of the allotment letter dated 08.07.2016 (Ex.CW-1/A), the opposite party failed to complete the development works within 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. The complaint was filed before the District Commission on 24.09.2019 i.e. after more
146
than 1 and a half year from the expiry of the stipulated period for delivery of possession and that too when there was no development at the site. Thus, the completion of aforesaid works in the year 2021 does not disentitle the complainant from claiming refund of the deposited amount.
278. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 28.04.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹5,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the remaining amount of ₹1,87,981/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.09.2018 i.e. the date of refund of the amount of ₹2,38,269/- till the date of actual realization.
279. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed/disposed of and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the remaining amount of ₹1,87,981/- and shall also pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire deposited amount of ₹4,26,250/- from the respective dates of deposit till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
280. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹1,29,617/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District
147
Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
60. First Appeal No.408 of 2021
281. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
282. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 31.03.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the amount of ₹9,92,250/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective deposits till the date of actual realization.
283. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
148
284. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
61. First Appeal No.411 of 2021
285. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Sh. Surjit Lal. Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to earlier allottee was transferred in favour of the complainant vide letter on 11.12.2013 (Ex.C-1) and thereafter allotment letter dated 20.10.2016 was issued in his favour.
286. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.01.2021 with consolidated of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the principal amount received from the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective deposits till the date of actual realization.
287. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
149
order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of transfer of LoI in favour of the complainant i.e. 11.12.2013 till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
288. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
62. First Appeal No.412 of 2021
289. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
290. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 11.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the amount of ₹4,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per
150
annum from the date of receipt of the amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
291. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
292. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
63. First Appeal No.413 of 2021
293. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
151
294. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 16.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹5,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the amount of ₹2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective deposits till the date of actual realization.
295. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
296. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
64. First Appeal No.418 of 2021
297. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Sh. Rajan Goyal as per contents of
152
the complaint, which have not been denied by the opposite party in its reply. Thereafter, the allotment letter dated 20.09.2016 (Ex.C-1) was issued in his favour regarding allotment of plot. Possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant within the stipulated period nor any development works were completed. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount of ₹4,50,000/- along with interest from the opposite party. Said amount was refunded to the complainant by the opposite party through cheque dated 20.03.2020 vide letter dated 12.05.2020 (Ex.C-6) without any interest.
298. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 16.02.2021. The relevant portion of the impugned order as mentioned in Para-18 is reproduced as under:
"18. In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted with consolidated costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/-. OP is directed to refund interest on Principal amount received by them from the complainant at different intervals. OP is liable to pay interest on this amount from the date of their respective deposit by the complainant @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment."
299. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the refunded/principal amount from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the
153
complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
300. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
65. First Appeal No.419 of 2021
301. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
302. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.01.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective deposits till the date of actual realization.
303. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
154
order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
304. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
66. First Appeal No.424 of 2021
305. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
306. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 24.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund ₹15,56,403/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates of respective deposits by the complainant till the date of
155
actual realization, subject to return of possession, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
307. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
308. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
67. First Appeal No.425 of 2021
309. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
310. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated
156
11.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund ₹1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated
08.02.2018.
311. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
312. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
68. First Appeal No.426 of 2021
157
313. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
314. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 24.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund ₹9,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
315. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
316. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification
158
of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
69. First Appeal No.427 of 2021
317. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The possession of the plot was not delivered by the opposite party within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the opposite party vide letter dated 30.09.2019 to refund the amount deposited by him along with interest. The opposite party refunded an amount of ₹3,84,050/- vide letter dated 31.12.2019 (Ex.C-9) but without any interest.
318. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.01.2021. Operative part of the impugned order as mentioned in para-9 is reproduced as under:
"19. In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted with consolidated costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/-. OP is directed to refund interest on Principal amount received by them from the complainant at different intervals. OP is liable to pay interest on this amount from the date of their respective deposit by the complainant @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
319. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest on the refunded
159
amount as awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
320. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
70. First Appeal No.429 of 2021
321. In the present case, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period.
322. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 16.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹5,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund ₹2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual realization.
160
323. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
324. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
71. First Appeal No.430 of 2021
325. In the present case, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot within the agreed period. The complainant paid a total sum of ₹14,85,703/- towards the price of the plot as per receipts and admission of the opposite party on record.
326. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated
161
24.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund ₹14,85,703/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
327. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
328. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
72. First Appeal No.432 of 2021
162
329. In the present case, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant within the agreed period.
330. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 11.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund ₹3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated
08.02.2018.
331. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
332. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the
163
District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
73. First Appeal No.433 of 2021
333. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from the earlier allottee namely Sh. Deepak Gera, as per contents of the complaint but no date of transfer of the plot is mentioned. Thereafter allotment letter dated 19.09.2016 (Ex.C-1) was issued in favour of the complainant. Possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant within the stipulated period nor any development works were completed. So, the complainant sought refund of the deposited amount of ₹4,50,000/- along with interest from the opposite party. Said amount was refunded to the complainant by the opposite party through cheque dated 20.03.2020 (Ex.C-5) without any interest.
334. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.01.2021 with consolidated of ₹5,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the principal amount received by it from the complainant at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual realization.
164
335. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount received from the complainant from the date of transfer of the LoI/plot in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
336. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
74. First Appeal No.434 of 2021
337. In the present case, the complainant is the original allottee of a plot in the scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant within the agreed period.
338. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated
165
24.02.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund ₹17,32,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession, if any, taken by the complainant from the opposite party as per letter dated 08.02.2018.
339. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
340. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount as per modification of the impugned order and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
75. First Appeal No.60 of 2022
341. In this case also, the respondent/complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the
166
appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
342. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹4,10,003/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him from the opposite party.
343. In this case, the complainant paid a total sum of ₹4,06,003/- towards the price of the plot as is evident from the contents of Para No.1 to 3 of the complaint. Even from the documents produced on record, the total of deposited amount comes to aforesaid amount of ₹4,06,003/-. Even in the written arguments submitted by the complainant before the District Commission, it is clear that the complainant paid an amount of ₹4,06,003/- towards price of the plot. However, in the prayer clause, the complainant sought refund of ₹4,10,003/- along with interest etc. It may be due to miscalculation. Therefore, the amount of ₹4,06,003/- is to be refunded to the complainant along with interest.
167
344. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, the First Appeal No.60 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that instead of ₹4,10,003/-, the opposite party shall refund an amount of ₹4,06,003/- along with interest to the complainant as awarded by the District Commission. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld. It is made clear that if the complainant is in possession of receipt of any other amount paid towards the price of the plot in question, he may produce the same before the opposite party, who after verification shall refund the same along with interest.
345. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹3,64,133/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
OTHER CROSS APPEALS (DISMISSED)
76. First Appeal No.416 of 2021 &
77. First Appeal No.459 of 2021 (Cross)
168
346. In this case also, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
347. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 07.04.2021 with consolidated of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him from the opposite party as per letter dated 23.02.2018.
348. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, both these appeals are hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is upheld.
349. In First Appeal No.416 of 2021, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,70,189/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The
169
respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
78. First Appeal No.428 of 2021 &
79. First Appeal No.460 of 2021 (Cross)
350. In said two appeals also, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
351. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 07.04.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him from the opposite party as per letter dated 23.02.2018.
352. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, both these appeals are hereby dismissed and the
170
impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is upheld.
353. In First Appeal No.428 of 2021, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,70,189/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
80. First Appeal No.64 of 2022 &
81. First Appeal No.456 of 2021 (Cross)
354. In said case also, the complainant was the original allottee of plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
355. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,00,000/- (if not already returned) along with interest
171
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him.
356. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, both these appeals are hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is upheld.
357. In First Appeal No.64 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,72,630/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
82. First Appeal No.65 of 2022 &
83. First Appeal No.457 of 2021 (Cross)
358. In said case also, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
172
359. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,00,000/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him.
360. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, both these appeals are hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is upheld.
361. In First Appeal No.65 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹2,72,630/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
84. First Appeal No.68 of 2022 &
85. First Appeal No.458 of 2021 (Cross)
173
362. In this case also, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the appellant/opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
363. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹6,00,000/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him.
364. In view of the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, both these appeals are hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is upheld.
365. In F.A. No.68 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹5,43,790/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the
174
release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
Cross Appeals (Enhancement)
86. First Appeal No.455 of 2021 &
87. First Appeal No.58 of 2022 (Cross)
366. In this case also, the complainant was the subsequent allottee and he purchased the plot from one Ashok Kumar, as is evident from the contents of the complaint. Said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant vide allocation letter dated 09.04.2014, as is evident from Office Order dated 12.12.2019 Ex.C-10. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
367. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹6,24,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization.
368. In this case, the complainant had deposited a total sum of ₹6,24,000/- with the opposite party as per allotment letter Ex.C-3,
175
Ex.C-5, receipt Ex.C-4 and demand drafts Ex.C-2, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. When the possession of the plot was not delivered within the agreed period, the complainant sought refund of the deposited amount along with interest. However, the opposite party refunded only ₹6,06,500/- vide demand draft dated 05.02.2020 (Ex.C-11). The District Commission while passing the impugned order did not consider this fact and ordered for payment of interest on the total amount of ₹6,24,000/-, whereas the remaining amount of ₹17,500/- (₹6,24,000/- minus ₹6,06,500/-) was also liable to be refunded to the complainant along with interest. Hence, the impugned order passed in the concerned complaint is liable to be modified.
369. In view of above discussion as well as the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.455 of 2021 filed by the complainant is allowed and First Appeal No.58 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the remaining amount of ₹17,500/- (₹6,24,000/- minus ₹6,06,500/-) and shall also pay interest on the entire deposited amount of ₹6,24,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of transfer of the plot i.e. 09.04.2014 in favour of the complainant till realization. Except this modification, the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld.
176
370. In F.A. No.58 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
88. First Appeal No.43 of 2022 &
89. First Appeal No.414 of 2021 (Cross)
371. In this case also, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the opposite party, which was changed with some other plot later on. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
372. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 05.04.2021 with consolidated amount of ₹5,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹7,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him as per letter dated 05.02.2018.
177
373. The complainant had deposited a total sum of ₹7,50,000/- as is evident from Clause 3(I) of the allotment letter and also deposited another amount of ₹7,200/- towards penal interest vide demand draft dated 07.04.2015 (Ex.C-3). However, while passing the impugned order, the District Commission failed to order for refund of said amount of ₹7,200/- along with interest. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be modified.
374. In view of above discussion as well as the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.43 of 2022 filed by the complainant is allowed and the impugned order passed in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund an amount of ₹7,57,200/- (₹7,50,000/- plus ₹7,200) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. The remaining part of said impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.414 of 2021 filed by the opposite party is dismissed.
375. In F.A. No.414 of 2021, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹6,73,816/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
178
90. First Appeal No.453 of 2021 &
91. First Appeal No.67 of 2022 (Cross)
376. In this case also, the complainant was the original allottee of a plot in the Scheme launched by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
377. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹6,00,000/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him.
378. While passing the impugned order for refund of the amount of ₹6,00,000/- along with interest etc., the District Commission failed to consider the fact that the complainant had moved an application for leading additional evidence dated 16.12.2020 for producing on record demand draft No.872920 dated 17.12.2016 Ex.C-7, vide which he had also deposited an amount of ₹30,000/- towards Park Facing charges with the opposite party. Said application was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 15.01.2021. However, while passing the impugned order, the District Commission failed to take into
179
consideration this fact. As such, the impugned order passed in the concerned complaint is liable to be modified to this effect and the complainant is entitled to the refund an amount of ₹6,30,000/- (₹6,00,000/- plus ₹30,000/-) along with interest.
379. In view of above discussion as well as the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.453 of 2021 filed by the complainant is allowed and the impugned passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund an amount of ₹6,30,000/- (₹6,00,000/- plus ₹30,000/-) (if not already refunded) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. The remaining part of said impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.67 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is dismissed.
380. In F.A. No.67 of 2022, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹5,64,179/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
92. First Appeal No.454 of 2021 &
93. First Appeal No.63 of 2022 (Cross)
180
381. In this case also, the complainant was the original allottee and was allotted a plot in the Scheme launched by the opposite party, which was later on changed with some other plot without issuing any notice to the complainant individually. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of the plot complete in all respects to the complainant within the stipulated period.
382. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.10.2021 with consolidated of ₹3,000/- towards costs and compensation and the appellant/opposite party was directed to refund an amount of ₹3,85,003/- (if not already returned) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts of amounts from the complainant at different intervals till the date of actual realization, subject to return of possession of plot, if any, taken by him.
383. While passing the impugned order, the District Commission failed to consider the fact that the complainant had moved an application dated 09.12.2020 for producing on record demand draft bearing No.201953 dated 20.02.2017 Ex.C-8, vide which he had also deposited an amount of ₹57,753/- towards park facing charges with the opposite party. Said application was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 18.01.2021. However, while passing the impugned order, the District Commission failed to take into
181
consideration this fact. As such, the impugned order is liable to be modified.
384. In view of above discussion as well as the relevant discussion held in First Appeal No.410 of 2021, First appeal No.454 of 2021 filed by the complainant is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission in the concerned complaint is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall refund an amount of ₹4,42,756/- (₹3,85,003/- plus ₹57,753/-) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization. The remaining part of said impugned order is upheld. The First Appeal No.63 of 2022 filed by the opposite party is dismissed.
385. In F.A. No.63 of 2021, the appellant has deposited a sum of ₹3,91,066/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. In this case, complainant Gian Chand had died on 29.09.2020 as is evident from Death Certificate produced in F.A. No.63 of 2022. The impugned order was passed by the District Commission in the complaint on 29.10.2021 i.e. after the death of the complainant Gian Chand. However, the impugned order is silent about the LRs of the complainant. F.A. No.454 of 2021 has been filed by the complainant Sh. Gian Chand (since deceased), through his son Sh. Robin Singla, stating himself to
182
be LR of the complainant. However, no amended memo of parties has been filed. Even in the affidavit filed by Sh. Robin Singla in support of said appeal, it has not been stated that he is the only legal heir/LR of deceased Gian Chand. Therefore, the District Commission shall verify as to whether Sh. Robin Singla is the only legal heir/LR of deceased Gian Chand or there are any other LR/LRs of the deceased. Only thereafter the amount shall be released to the LR/LRs of deceased Gian Chand after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
386. Compliance of orders passed in the respective appeals shall be made by the opposite party within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
387. Since the main cases have been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
388. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-
19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)
PRESIDENT
(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL)
MEMBER
July 13, 2022. (Gurmeet S)
Alert