Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Harbans Singh and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.997 of 2017, 1211 of 2017, 1215 of 2017, 1260 of 2017, 1267 of 2017, 1319 of 2017, 1474 of 2017, 833 of 2018 and
999 of 2017
Decided on 19.4.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Harbans Singh & Anil Kumar Chowdhary:Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate
For the Jatinder Pal Singh:Mr. Karan Dewan, Advocate
For the Col. R.S. Ghotra: In person
For the Rajeev Narang:Mr. Anirudh K Mudgal, Advocate
For the Jalandhar Improvement Trust:Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Madhu Bala Sandhu, Advocate
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Failure on part of Trust to develop property – Deficiency attributed - On facts, 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 – Therefore, 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 – Also, 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 - 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. [Para 2 to 15].
Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.
ORDER
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member—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 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
