ORDER

JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Vide this order, I propose to dispose of nine Appeal Nos. 997, 1260, 999, 1267, 1474, 1215, 1211, 1319 of 2017 and 833 of 2018. The project qua which these appeals have been filed and the facts and circumstances and the issues are identical in all the appeals.

2. Appeal Nos. 997 and 1260 of 2017 are cross appeals. Similarly Appeal Nos. 999 and 1267 of 2017 are cross appeals, Appeal Nos. 1474 and 1215 of 2017 are cross appeals, Appeal Nos. 1211 and 1319 of 2017 are also cross appeals except Appeal No. 833 of 2018.

3. The brief facts in each of the Appeals are discussed as under. In cross appeals, common facts are mentioned therein.

Appeal Nos. 997 and 1260 of 2017

1. These appeals are cross appeals arising out of the order dated 07.03.2017 in CC No. 205 of 2015. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission had directed the Jalandhar Improvement Trust ( hereinafter referred to as, the Trust) to refund a sum of Rs.39,55,510/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost. Both the Trust as well as the complainant have filed independent appeals. While, the Trust has submitted that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and needs to be set aside, the complainant has submitted that State Commission vide impugned order has granted compensation by way of interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint, while State Commission in another complaint against the Trust for the same project in Consumer Complaint No. 81 & 82 of 2013 Munish Dev Sharma & Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had awarded compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its payment and said order in Munish Dev and Sanjay Gupta was affirmed on Appeal by this Commission vide its order dated 01.07.2015 in FA No. 1215 and 1216 of 2014. It is submitted that Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C ) No. 23471/2015 and 23969 of 2015 and vide order dated 02.11.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the order of the State Commission as well as of this Commission. It has submitted that relief granted by the State Commission needs to be modified to this effect.

2. The brief admitted facts are that the Trust had floated a development scheme over an area of 94.97 acres for allotment of freehold residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar. The booking for those plots had started from 08.08.2011 and application were invited from the general public. An advertisement was circulated through different channels for investment in the said scheme. The complainant also applied for a plot and submitted the application form through authorized Bank Punjab Gramin Bank and also raised a loan of about 3,40,000/-. The price of the plot was Rs.17,000/- per sq.yds. He had applied for plot of 200 sq. yds. An allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 was issued to the complainant by the Trust and residential plot no. 193-D measuring 200 sq.yds. was allotted to him. One of the terms and conditions of the allotment was that development facility would be completed by the Trust within 2 ½ years and the possession would be taken by the allottee after the execution of the agreement of sale, which was to be executed within 30 days from the date of allotment. The

4

allottee was, thereafter to complete the construction over the plot within 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the site plan sanctioned. In order to execute the agreement of sale, the complainant has alleged that he had visited the office of the Trust on 02.05.2012 and Trust executed the agreement and promised to send the copy of the agreement to the complainant within a week. However, neither the copy of agreement was sent to him nor possession of the plot had been handed over to him. He had meanwhile paid a total sum of Rs.39,55,510/- on different dates to the Trust. The complaint had been filed in the year 2015 and the complainant had alleged that till the date of filing of the complaint, vacant possession of the residential plot was not handed over to him and because of the act of the Trust, he could not have built a house on the said plot. It was submitted that there was no sign of any development at the site. There was no demarcation of the plots at the site till date and the plot area was under cultivation and encroached upon by slum dwellers. No road had been built as per the map plan of the project. It was submitted that due to this act of the Trust, complainant had suffered a lot. It is further submitted that several other allottees of the said project had also filed the complaints and the State Commission had ordered refund of the amount. It is further contended in the complaint that Trust vide letter dated 02.07.2014 had stated that because few of the owners of khasra numbers had obtained the stay from the Hon'ble High Court as co- sharer in those khasras for that reason, development at the site could not be done and Trust was unable to deliver the possession. It is also learnt by the complainant that original owner of the land which was acquired by the Trust had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3559/2011 on 23.02.2011 against the State of Punjab as well as Trust and Collector Land Acquisition and notification of acquiring the land was sought to be quashed. It is submitted that Civil Writ Petition was filed on 23.02.2011 and despite the fact that acquisition of land had been challenged before the Supreme Court, the scheme was promulgated by the Trust on 08.08.2011. It was alleged that Trust has cheated the innocent allottees and enriched itself by undue means.

3. The claim had been contested by the Trust. Trust has not disputed the promulgation of the project for allotment of residential plots in 94.97 acre which had been acquired by the Trust. It is also not disputed that CWP No. 3559 of 2011 had been filed against the Trust before the High Court of Punjab. It is also not disputed that subject plot had been allotted to the complainant. It is also not disputed that under the development scheme, it was the duty of the Trust to provide basic facilities such as road, water supply, street lights, park etc.in the scheme area. It is further submitted that possession has already been handed over to the complainant but he never come forward to take the delivery of the same. It has been contended that area adjoining the subject plot no. 193-D which was allotted to the complainant was under the order of stay of High Court of Punjab and it was for that reason that the Trust was unable to carry out the development in the area. It is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Trust and sought dismissal of the complaint.

First Appeal Nos. 999 and 1267 of 2017

1. These appeals are cross appeals arising out of the order dated 07.03.2017 in CC No. 334 of 2015. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission had directed the Jalandhar Improvement Trust ( hereinafter referred to as, the Trust) to refund a sum of Rs.42,61,575/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost. Both the Trust as well as the complainant have filed independent appeals. While, the Trust has submitted that

5

impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and needs to be set aside, the complainant submitted that State Commission vide impugned order has granted compensation by way of interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint, while State Commission in another complaint against the Trust for the same project in Consumer Complaint No. 81 & 82 of 2013 Munish Dev Sharma & Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had awarded compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its payment and said order of the of the State Commission in Munish Dev and Sanjay Gupta was affirmed on Appeal by this Commission vide its order dated 01.07.2015 in FA No. 1215 and 1216 of 2014. It is submitted that Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C ) No. 23471/2015 and 23969 of 2015 and vide order dated 02.11.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of the State Commission as well as of this Commission. It has submitted that relief granted by the State Commission needs to be modified to this effect.

2. The brief admitted facts are that the Trust had floated a development scheme over an area of 94.97 acres for allotment of freehold residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar. The booking for those plots had started from 08.08.2011 and application were invited from the general public. An advertisement was circulated through different channels for investment in the said scheme. The complainant also applied for a plot and submitted the application form through authorized bank. The price of the plot was Rs.17,000/- per sq.yds.

He had applied for plot of 250 sq. yds. An allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 was issued to the complainant by the Trust and residential plot no. 136-D measuring 250 sq.yds. was allotted to him. One of the terms and conditions of the allotment was that development facility would be completed by the Trust within 2 ½ years and the possession would be taken by the allottee after the execution of the agreement of sale, which was to be executed within 30 days from the date of allotment. The allottee was, thereafter to complete the construction over the plot within 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the site plan sanctioned. However, the possession of the plot was not offered to him at any time and the development at the site had also not taken place till the filing of the complaint. He made full payment of Rs.42,61,575/- on different dates. It was submitted that there was no sign of any development on the site. There was no demarcation of the plots at the site till date and the plot area was under cultivation and encroached upon by slum dwellers. No road had been built as per the map plan of the project. It was submitted that due to this act of the Trust, complainant had suffered a lot. It is further submitted that several other allottees of the said project had also filed the complaints and the State Commission had ordered refund of the amount. It is also learnt by the complainant that original owner of the land which was acquired by the Trust had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3559/2011 on 23.02.2011 against the State of Punjab as well as Trust and Collector Land Acquisition, and notification of acquiring the land was sought to be quashed. It is submitted that Civil Writ Petition was filed on 23.02.2011 and despite the fact that acquisition of land had been challenged before the Supreme Court, the scheme was promulgated by the Trust on 08.08.2011. It was alleged that Trust has cheated the innocent allottees and enriched itself by undue means.

3. The claim had been contested by the Trust. Trust has not disputed the promulgation of the project for allotment of residential plots in 94.97 acre which had been acquired by the Trust. It is also not disputed that CWP No. 3559 of 2011 had been filed against the Trust before the High Court of Punjab. It is also not disputed that subject plot had been allotted to the complainant. It is also not disputed that under the development scheme, it was the duty of

6

the Trust to provide basic facilities such as road, water supply, street lights, park etc.in the scheme area. It is further submitted that possession has already been handed over to the complainant but he never come forward to take the delivery of the same. It has been contended that area adjoining the subject plot no. 136-D which was allotted to the complainant was under the order of stay of High Court of Punjab and it was for that reason that the Trust was unable to carry out the development in the area. It is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Trust and sought dismissal of the complaint.

First Appeal Nos. 1215 and 1474 of 2017

1. These appeals are cross appeals arising out of the order dated 07.03.2017 in CC No. 190 of 2015. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission had directed the Jalandhar Improvement Trust ( hereinafter referred to as, the Trust) to refund a sum of Rs.24,65,950/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost. Both the Trust as well as the complainant have filed independent appeals. While, the Trust has submitted that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and needs to be set aside, the complainant submitted that State Commission vide impugned order has granted compensation by way of interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint, while State Commission in another complaint against the Trust for the same project in Consumer Complaint No. 81 & 82 of 2013 Munish Dev Sharma & Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had awarded compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its payment and said order of the of the State Commission in Munish Dev and Sanjay Gupta was affirmed on Appeal by this Commission vide its order dated 01.07.2015 in FA No. 1215 and 1216 of 2014. It is submitted that Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C ) No. 23471/2015 and 23969 of 2015 and vide order dated 02.11.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of the State Commission as well as of this Commission. It has submitted that relief granted by the State Commission needs to be modified to this effect.

2. The brief admitted facts are that the Trust had floated a development scheme over an area of 94.97 acres for allotment of freehold residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar. . The booking for those plots had started from 08.08.2011 and application were invited from the general public. An advertisement was circulated through different channels for investment in the said scheme. The complainant also applied for a plot and submitted the application form through authorized branches of Punjab National Bank. The price of the plot was Rs.17,000/- per sq.yds. He had applied for plot of 500 sq. yds. An allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 was issued to the complainant by the Trust and residential plot no. 56-C measuring 500 sq.yds. was allotted to him. One of the terms and conditions of the allotment was that development facility would be completed by the Trust within 2 ½ years and the possession would be taken by the allottee after the execution of the agreement of sale, which was to be executed within 30 days from the date of allotment. The allottee was, thereafter to complete the construction over the plot within 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the site plan sanctioned. However, the possession of the plot was not offered to him at any time and the development at the site had also not taken place till the filing of the complaint. He made total payment of Rs.24,65,950/- on different dates. It was submitted that there was no sign of any development on the site. There was no demarcation of the plots at the site till date and the plot area was under cultivation and encroached upon by slum dwellers. No road had been built as per the map plan of the project. It is submitted that due to this act of the Trust, complainant

7

had suffered a lot. It is further submitted that several other allottees of the said project had also filed the complaints and the State Commission had ordered refund of the amount. It is also learnt by the complainant that original owner of the land which was acquired by the Trust had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3559/2011 on 23.02.2011 against the State of Punjab as well as Trust and Collector Land Acquisition and notification of acquiring the land was sought to be quashed. It is submitted that Civil Writ Petition was filed on 23.02.2011 and despite the fact that acquisition of land had been challenged before the Supreme Court, the scheme was promulgated by the Trust on 08.08.2011. It was alleged that Trust has cheated the innocent allottees and enriched itself by undue means.

3. The claim had been contested by the Trust. Trust has not disputed the promulgation of the project for allotment of residential plots in 94.97 acre which had been acquired by the Trust. It is also not disputed that CWP No. 3559 of 2011 had been filed against the Trust before the High Court of Punjab. It is also not disputed that subject plot had been allotted to the complainant. It is also not disputed that under the development scheme, it was the duty of the Trust to provide basic facilities such as road, water supply, street lights, park etc.in the scheme area. It is further submitted that possession has already been handed over to the complainant but he never come forward to take the delivery of the same. It has been contended that area adjoining the subject plot no. 56-C which was allotted to the complainant was under the order of stay of High Court of Punjab and it was for that reason that Trust was unable to carry out the development in the area. It is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Trust and sought dismissal of the complaint.

First Appeal Nos. 1211 and 1319 of 2017

1. These appeals are cross appeals arising out of the order dated 07.03.2017 in CC No. 56 of 2015. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission had directed the Jalandhar Improvement Trust ( hereinafter referred to as, the Trust) to refund a sum of Rs.39,19,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost. Both the Trust as well as the complainant have filed independent appeals. While, the Trust has submitted that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and needs to be set aside, the complainant submitted that State Commission vide impugned order has granted compensation by way of interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint, while State Commission in another complaint against the Trust for the same project in Consumer Complaint No. 81 & 82 of 2013 Munish Dev Sharma & Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had awarded compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its payment and said order of the of the State Commission in Munish Dev and Sanjay Gupta was affirmed on Appeal by Trust by this Commission in FA No. 1215 and 1216 of 2014 vide its order dated 01.07.2015. It is submitted that Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C ) No. 23471/2015 and 23969 of 2015 and vide order dated 02.11.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of the State Commission as well as of this Commission. It has submitted that relief granted by the State Commission needs to be modified to this effect.

2. The brief admitted facts are that the Trust had floated a development scheme over an area of 94.97 acres for allotment of freehold residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension,

8

Jalandhar. The booking for those plots had started from 08.08.2011 and application were invited from the general public. An advertisement was circulated through different channels for investment in the said scheme. The complainant also applied for a plot and submitted the application form through authorized branches of Punjab National Bank. The price of the plot was Rs.17,000/- per sq.yds. He had applied for plot of 200 sq. yds. An allotment letter dated 26.12.2011 was issued to the complainant by the Trust and residential plot no. 294-D measuring 200 sq.yds. was allotted to him. One of the terms and conditions of the allotment was that development facility would be completed by the Trust within 2 ½ years and the possession would be taken by the allottee after the execution of the agreement of sale, which was to be executed within 30 days from the date of allotment. The allottee was, thereafter to complete the construction over the plot within 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the site plan sanctioned. However, the possession of the plot was not offered to him at any time and the development at the site had also not taken place till the filing of the complaint. He made full payment of Rs.39,19,450/- on different dates. It was submitted that there was no sign of any development on the site. There was no demarcation of the plots at the site till date and the plot area was under cultivation and encroached upon by slum dwellers. No road had been built as per the map plan of the project. It was submitted that due to this act of the Trust, complainant had suffered a lot. It is further submitted that several other allottees of the said project had also filed the complaints and the State Commission had ordered refund of the amount. It is also learnt by the complainant that original owner of the land which was acquired by the Trust had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3559/2011 on 23.02.2011 against the State of Punjab as well as Trust and Collector Land Acquisition and notification of acquiring the land was sought to be quashed. It is submitted that Civil Writ Petition was filed on 23.02.2011 and despite the fact that acquisition of land had been challenged before the Supreme Court, the scheme was promulgated by the Trust on 08.08.2011. It was alleged that Trust has cheated the innocent allottees and enriched itself by undue means.

3. The claim had been contested by the Trust. Trust has not disputed the promulgation of the project for allotment of residential plots in 94.97 acre which had been acquired by the Trust. It is also not disputed that CWP No. 3559 of 2011 had been filed against the Trust before the High Court of Punjab. It is also not disputed that subject plot had been allotted to the complainant. It is also not disputed that under the development scheme, it was the duty of the Trust to provide basic facilities such as road, water supply, street lights, park etc.in the scheme area. It is further submitted that possession has already been handed over to the complainant but he never come forward to take the delivery of the same. It has been contended that area adjoining the subject plot no. 294-D which was allotted to the complainant was under the order of stay of High Court of Punjab and it was for that reason that the Trust was unable to carry out the development in the area. It is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Trust and sought dismissal of the complaint.

First Appeal No. 833 of 2018

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Trust against the order dated 03.10.2017 of the State Commission in Complaint No. 146 of 2016. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission had directed the Jalandhar Improvement Trust ( hereinafter referred to as, the Trust) to refund the entire deposited amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost. While the Trust submitted that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and needs

9

to be set aside. The complainant submitted that State Commission vide impugned order has granted compensation by way of interest @ 12% from the date of filing of complaint, while State Commission in another complaint against the Trust for the same project in Consumer Complaint No. 81 & 82 of 2013 Munish Dev Sharma & Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had awarded compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its payment and said order of the of the State Commission in Munish Dev and Sanjay Gupta was affirmed on Appeal by Trust by this Commission in FA No. 1215 and 1216 of 2014 vide its order dated 01.07.2015. It is submitted that Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C ) No. 23471/2015 and 23969 of 2015 and vide order dated 02.11.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of the State Commission as well as of this Commission. It has submitted that relief granted by the State Commission needs to be modified to this effect.

2. The brief admitted facts are that the Trust had floated a development scheme over an area of 94.97 acres for allotment of freehold residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar. The complainant booked a plot measuring 200 sq. yds by depositing an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-. Plot No. 198-D was allotted to him. The total price of the plot was Rs.34,00,000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.22,62,205/- with the opposite parties. It is averred that after lapse of several years, the plots have not been demarcated on the site and there is no development like roads, sanitation, drainage and electricity services. It is further averred that opposite parties failed to develop the plots inspite of receiving sufficient amounts even after expiry of more than four years. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present Appeal.

3. The claim had been contested by the Trust. Trust has not disputed the promulgation of the project for allotment of residential plots in 94.97 acre which had been acquired by the Trust. It is submitted that complainant had not taken required steps for taking possession of the plot. It is further submitted that complainant failed to pay the instalments in time as per the allotment letter and complainant was informed to make the balance instalments as well as to execute the agreement to sell but he failed to pay the same and execute the agreement to sell as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The opposite parties in their written statement denied any deficiency in service on their part as they are ready to deliver the possession of the plot. The refund of the earnest money paid by an applicant can only be made if the applicant has been unsuccessful in draw of lots and as per conditions no. 7 of the allotment letter allottee could take possession from the Trust after execution of an agreement and as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the allottee has to execute the agreement to sell within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. It is further submitted that complainant never approached the Trust for getting the agreement to sell executed within 30 days and rather he kept quiet.

4. In all these matters parties had led the evidences before the State Commission and State Commission after hearing the parties and perusing the records allowed all the complaints.

5. The main contention of the Trust in all these appeals is that State Commission had not considered the facts of each and individual complaint but had taken up one complaint i.e. Complaint No. 88 of 2015 and on the basis of the facts of that complaint decided the issue. It is further argued by the Trust that the complainants were not interested in taking the possession of the plots since the market price in the year 2015-16 had come down and there were no

10

buyers. Besides this, several other contentions have been raised by the Trust in the Appeals. It is further argued that the complainants whose plot did not fall with the portion of land under stay, ought to have taken possession, but they did not come forward to execute deeds within stipulated period as per agreement and they are defaulters and their complaints are liable to be dismissed.

6. The complainants on the other hand who have filed their cross appeals have submitted that interest ought to have been awarded from the date of deposits and not from the date of filing of the complaint and, therefore, the order of the State Commission needs modification. It is further argued that the findings of the State Commission is based on the facts and circumstances proved on record. It is submitted that admittedly at the time when the project was promulgated, there was stay qua same portion of the land of the project yet the entire project was promulgated for allotment concealing the factum of stay and thus the Trust had acted malafidely and had by wrongful means enriched itself by taking money from the innocent buyers and not developing the land and handing it over to them within the stipulated period. It is also argued that several allottees of the said project had filed several complaints findings in which are challenged upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the deficiency on the part of the Trust qua the said project called Surya Enclave Extension Jalandhar and, therefore, the Appeals filed by the Trust has no merit and are liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. It is an admitted fact as has been admitted by the Trust in its written version that some portion of the land under the project was under stay by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 3559 of 2011, so they were unable to do the development work at the site. It is not in dispute that under the scheme and as per the terms of the agreement, the possession was to be given to the allottees after developing the land and the allottees were to build their houses on their allotted plots after the possession was handed over to them within 3 years. Under the agreement, the Trust was to develop the area by providing roads, sanitation, water supply, electricity etc and it is an admitted fact that the Trust failed to develop the land and since no development work was done by the Trust, the complainants could not have constructed the houses within stipulated period of time. The Trust also was not in a position to hand over the physical possession of allotted plots to the allottees for raising the construction on the said plots. It is also not in dispute that a large number of allottees had filed complaints and appeals against the Trust for deficiency before the State Commission and this Commission. These complaints and appeals were allowed. The Trust was directed to refund the money and also pay compensation.

8. My attention is drawn to the order of this Commission in Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. Munish Dev Sharma decided on 01.07.2015. This Appeal was filed by the Trust against the order of State Commission. This Commission had dismissed the Appeal on merits with heavy cost recoverable from the employees of the Trust. The dismissal of the Appeal was challenged by the Trust before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9294 of 2015 which was listed for hearing by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with Civil Appeal No. 9295 of 2015 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 02.11.2015 upheld the order of this Commission in the said Appeal. It is interesting to note that against the order of this Commission in Munish Dev Sharma ( supra ), Trust had not pressed the findings of this Commission relating to the deficiency in service on its part before

11

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their SLP as is apparent from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.11.2015. Their only challenge was punitive action suggested by this Commission against the Delinquent Officers of the Trust while dismissing the Appeal. It is thus apparent that the defences taken by the Trust qua the said project were considered and rejected by this Commission in Munish Dev Sharma ( supra ) and found the Trust deficient in providing services and the order of this Commission qua deficiency on the part of the Trust relating to the said project had been accepted by the Trust before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that is why findings of this Commission qua deficiency on its part was not pressed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal. The issue, therefore, is now well settled and there is no need to revisit the issue again. Relevant paragraphs of the order of this Commission in Munish Dev Sharma (supra) are reproduced herein:

"25. After going through the entire record, we are really shocked and surprised at the conduct of the Appellant-Trust. As per appellant's own case, in the year 2011 it framed a 'Development Scheme' for allotment of residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension at Jalandhar. Accordingly, it invited applications from the general public. After taking substantial amount of money from the respondents, the appellants issued allotment letters to them, allotting specific plots. However, appellants failed to handover possession of the plots to the respondents for more than 3 years. The legal defence of appellants is, that acquisition of land for the aforesaid scheme was challenged by various land owners by way of various writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and there was stay. As such, appellants were not in a position to handover the possession of the plots. In this regard, appellants have placed on record, copy of order dated 8.3.2011, passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3559 of 2011. Relevant portion of it states;

"It is specific contention of counsel for the petitioners that before issuance of a notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, no Scheme was prepared by the Improvement Trust, which is a pre-requisite to initiate the process of acquisition.

Notice of motion for 22.3.2011.

Dasti also.

Status quo regarding possession shall be maintained, however, this would not mean that the petitioners can raise any further construction over the property in dispute.

08.03.2011"

26. Thus, it is manifestly clear from the above order that as on 8.3.2011, there was

"Status quo regarding possession". However, the appellants despite having full knowledge of the above order of the High Court, issued allotment letters on 26.12.2011 and 23.12.2011, in respect of plots in question. Therefore, above facts clearly goes on to show, that at the time of issuance of the allotment letters in respect of plots in question, it was well within the knowledge of the Appellant-Trust, that

12

there was an impediment in allotment of the plots in question. In spite thereof, Appellant-Trust had gone ahead and allotted plots in question to the respondents, which it could not have done so. In this manner, appellants have played fraud with the general public and thus collected huge amount of money.

27. The aforesaid act of the appellants, clearly falls within the meaning of "Unfair Trade Practice" as defined under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act, relevant portion of which states;

"(r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

28. Appellants having full knowledge that the scheme in question could not see the light of the day, still promoted the scheme to befool the public. Thus, appellants have adopted "unfair method" as well as "deceptive practice" in promoting the sale of the plots in question. This act of appellants, is squarely covered within the meaning of "Unfair Trade Practice".

29. Furthermore, appellants after having taken substantial amount from the respondents in the year 2011, are still enjoying their hard earned money for last many years. Now, when appellants are not in a position to allot the plots in a habitable condition to the respondents, then why they are still withholding respondents' money. There is no reasonable and plausible explanation, in this regard from the side of the appellants. We deplore such "unfair trade practices"

being adopted by the Appellant-Trust, which is a Public Body.

30. It would also be pertinent to observe, that appellants have not given any firm date of handing over the possession of plots in question, to the respondents which also is a "Deceptive Practice". The appellants should have given firm date of handing over of possession, at the time of taking booking amount. By not indicating the true picture with regard to their scheme to the respondents, appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to "unfair trade practice".

31. Thus, appellants by not delivering the physical possession of fully developed plots to the respondents, till date even after having received more than 90% of the price thereof, are not only deficient in rendering service but are also guilty of indulging into "unfair trade practice".

32. Appellants in the present case, "wants to have the cake and eat it too", as admittedly they have received about 90% of the sale price of the plots. The appellants are thus enjoying possession of the plots as well as substantial amount of consideration paid by the respondents. On the other hand, respondents after having

13

paid substantial amount of the sale consideration, are still empty handed.

33. Decisions of Bangalore Development Authority (supra) and Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) as relied by appellants in support of its case are not applicable to the facts of the present cases.

34. Such type of unscrupulous act on the part of Appellant-Trust should be dealt with heavy hands, who after grabbing the money from the purchasers, enjoy and utilize their money but do not hand over the plots on one pretext or the other. Appellants want the respondents to run from one fora to other, so that appellants can go on enjoying the respondents' money without any hindrance.

35. It is well settled, that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless appeal in consumer foras. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree, must be dealt with heavy hands. Unscrupulous developer like Appellant-Trust, who after taking almost entire cost of the plots, do not perform their part of obligation, should not be spared. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of Public Bodies, that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters."

9. Since the deficiency on the part of the Trust while developing the said project has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all the contentions raised before this Commission by the Trust have no merit. No new facts are brought on record by the Trust to justify their claim. There is no denial that at the time when the project was promulgated, there was stay and prospective buyers / allottees were kept in dark about the stay of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It is also a fact that though the stay confined to portion of the entire acquired land for the scheme, however, it is also a fact that there was no demarcation of the area, no numbering of the plots and yet despite the stay knowing well that the Trust would not be able to develop the area as per the promises made, it promulgated the scheme keeping the prospective buyers in the dark about the actual facts. The location of numbered plot at site was not even known to the Trust at the time when the scheme was promulgated and allotment done. The Trust was, therefore, unable at that time to ensure as to which allotted plot falls within the land qua which there was stay in operation. This act on the part of the Trust is nothing but an act of unfair trade practice and of cheating the public at large. It is also a fact that Trust had promised to develop the area within stipulated period but till the date of filing of the complaints, it had failed to develop the area. Even after lapse of several years, the Trust had failed to develop the area and thus was not in a position to hand over the possession of the plot on which the complainants could not have raised their houses. The deficiency on the part of the Trust, therefore, is writ large and there is no escape to it.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their several pronouncements have already dismissed the Appeals filed by the Trust against the order of this Commission whereby Trust had been found deficient in providing services. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP ( C) No.28889/2019 @ SLP (C) Diary No. 41995 of 2019 titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. Archit Gupta vide its order dated 06.12.2019. The same order has been followed by

14

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another SLP (Civil) Diary No. 42045 of 2019 titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. Pooja Garg whereby vide its order dated 20.10.2021, it had dismissed the Appeal filed by the Trust following its earlier order in SLP ( C) No. 28889/2019 @ SLP ( C) Diary no.41995/2019.

11. In view of the above, I found no merit in the Appeals filed by the Trust.

12. The Appeal Nos. 1260 of 2017, 1474 of 2017, 1267 of 2017 and 1319 of 2017 have been filed by the complainants with the prayer that interest should be awarded to them from the date of respective deposits and not from the date of filing of the complaint.

13. This Commission in Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. Pooja Garg II ( 2019) CPJ 285 ( NC) had awarded the compensation from the date of respective deposits till the date of realization and this order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C) Diary No. 42045 of 2019 dated 20.10.2021. In the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Munish Dev Sharma ( supra ), in First Appeal No. 1215 of 2014 vide its order dated 01.07.2015, this Commission had awarded compensation by way of interest from the date of deposits till realization. This order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9294 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No. 9295 of 2015 decided on 02.11.2015. This Commission in First Appeal No. 996 of 2017 titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. Archit Gupta and cross Appeal No. 1269 of 2017 vide its order dated 14.06.2019 had awarded compensation by way of interest from the respective dates of deposit till realization. In First Appeal No. 995 of 2017 titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Pooja Garg and 1268 of 2017 titled Pooja Garg Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. while disposing of these two cross appeals, vide its order dated 10.04.2019, this Commission had granted interest from the respective dates of deposit till its realization and this order had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C) Diary No. 42045 of 2019. Similarly while disposing of the First Appeal No. 998 of 2017 titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh and 1261 of 2017 titled Tarsem Singh Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. this Commission vide its order dated 14.06.2019 had granted interest from the date of respective deposits till its realization. In view of the above, it is apparent that order of the State Commission in Appeal Nos. 1260 of 2017, 1474 of 2017, 1267 of 2017 and 1319 of 2017 needs modification.

14. Following directions are issued:

First Appeal No. 1260 of 2017

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust is directed to refund a sum of Rs.39,55,510/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment.

2. Compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs and cost of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the State Commission shall also be paid by the Trust to the complainant.

3. The payment shall be made within 2 months failing which the payable amount shall carry rate of interest @ 12%.

First Appeal No. 1474 of 2017

15

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust is directed to refund a sum of Rs.24,65,950/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment.

2. Compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs and cost of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the State Commission shall also be paid by the Trust to the complainant.

3. The payment shall be made within 2 months failing which the payable amount shall carry rate of interest @ 12%.

First Appeal No. 1267 of 2017

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust is directed to refund a sum of Rs.42,61,575/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment.

2. Compensation of Rs.4.00 lacs and cost of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the State Commission shall also be paid by the Trust to the complainant.

3. The payment shall be made within 2 months failing which the payable amount shall carry rate of interest @ 12%.

First Appeal No. 1319 of 2017

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust is directed to refund a sum of Rs.39,19,450/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment.

2. Compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs and cost of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the State Commission shall also be paid by the Trust to the complainant.

3. The payment shall be made within 2 months failing which the payable amount shall carry rate of interest @ 12%.

15. The Appeal Nos. 997 of 2017, 1215 of 2017, 999 of 2017, 1211 of 2017 and 833 of 2018 filed by the Trust are frivolous and meritless and have been filed despite the fact that the issue qua deficiency has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. While dismissing these appeals cost of Rs.2.00 lacs is imposed on the Trust in each of the Appeals which shall be paid to the complainants / respondents within two months.

......................J

DEEPA SHARMA

PRESIDING MEMBER

16