Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President, Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member and Kiran Sibal, Member
Punjab Urban Planning and Development
Authority – Appellant
versus
Charandeep Singh and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.47 of 2021 and First Appeal No.74 of 2021
Decided on 13.7.2021
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41) – First Appeal – Respondents got an allotment in Punjab Urban Development Authority Scheme transferred to their name – PUDA promised in agreement that property would be ready for possession in 18 months - Respondents allege that no work was done in 18 months and property remained abandoned – Respondents complained to Distt. Commission upon not receiving a response from PUDA – Distt. Commission passed an Order awarding 9% interest from the date of payment along with Rs.10,000/- as damages and Rs. 5,000/- as costs – Appellant PUDA appealed before the State Commission against the order, stating that the arbitration clause made complaint untenable – State Commission stated, based on precedent, that arbitration clause is no bar to complaint in front of the commission – Appellant stated that the project was ready for possession on the promised date – Appellant issued no notice for the same to Respondents – State Commission upheld the appeal partially – Distt. Commission order awarding interest from date of payment flawed – Interest to be calculated post 18 months’ period. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20 & 21)
Result: Appeal partially allowed.
JUDGMENT
Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President.—This order will dispose of the above noted two (2) first appeals preferred against the similar impugned orders dated 07.01.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now, “Commission”), Faridkot (in short, “the District Commission”), as the questions of facts and law involved in both the appeals are similar and both the appeals have been preferred by same opposite party against the complainant(s). The facts are taken from First Appeal No.47 of 2021.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
First Appeal No.47 of 2021
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that one plot bearing No.20, measuring 250 sq.yds. situated in the scheme launched by the opposite party under the name and style of “PUDA Enclave (Baba Farid University Site) OUVGL, Faridkot, was earlier allotted to one Sh. Angrej Singh son of Sh. Nirmal Singh, R/o Village Budha, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, vide allotment letter dated 09.05.2012. The complainants had purchased that plot from the original allottee and the same was transferred in their name, vide letter dated 15.05.2013, as per terms and conditions of original allotment letter, after completion of all the formalities. The complainants had deposited a total sum of Rs.3,46,250/- with the opposite party towards the price of the plot, interest and other charges up to 03.05.2013. As per terms and conditions of the scheme, the opposite party undertook to hand over the actual possession of the plot to the complainants after completion of development works, like sewerage, drinking water, roads, streets, electricity, boundary walls etc. within 18 months from the date of allotment of the plot. However, the opposite party failed to carry out any kind of development in the scheme area and deliver possession of the plot within that period. Even there is no identity or demarcation of the plot allotted to the complainants and the colony is like an abandoned place. The complainants, along with other allottees of the scheme, had approached the opposite party about six months ago, with a request to complete the development works and deliver possession of the plot, but to no effect. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainants approached the District Commission, seeking directions to refund the amount deposited by the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum besides compensation and litigation costs, or in the alternative, the opposite party be directed to complete the development works and hand over possession of the plot and to refund the interest charged by the opposite party on the amount deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till delivery of possession.
Defence of the Opposite Party
4. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before the District Commission and filed reply to the complaint, raising legal objections that the complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In view of the terms and conditions of allotment letter, any dispute with regard to the allotment of plot should have been referred to sole Arbitrator, Chief Arbitrator, PUDA, Mohali and award passed by the Arbitrator shall be binding on parties. The complainants have committed breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment. The complaint is time barred. On merits, facts qua allotment of the plot, in question, in favour of earlier allottee and its subsequent transfer in favour of the complainants have been admitted. It is pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, possession of the plot was to be delivered after completion of development works at site within 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. The develo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
