ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

First appeal No.1135 of 2022 Date of institution : 27.12.2022 Reserved on : 18.02.2025 Date of decision : 12.03.2025 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Bathinda through its Estate Officer, PUDA Complex, Bhaggu Road, Bathinda Tehsil and District Bathinda.

…..Appellant/Opposite party Versus Vaishali Rai d/o Ravinder Kumar Rai r/o G-22, Uppal Marbel Arch, Manimajra U.T. Chandigarh through her father Ravinder Kumar, General Power of Attorney.

.….Respondent /Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridkot, in CC/08/2020.

Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S.Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh.Ashish Grover, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Amitoj Singh, Advocate for Sh.Rajat Chopra, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridkot (in short, the “District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short ‘OP’), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed as under :-

“15. After careful perusal of the record and in the light of aforementioned discussion, we have come to the conclusion that as per terms and conditions of the scheme, which are clearly mentioned in the Letter of Intent Ex.C-3, OPs have to deliver the possession of plot after development within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment, whichever is earlier, but OPs have failed to comply with this condition and have not started the work at site. Rather, from the perusal of Ex.C-10, it is clear that land in question does not belong to PUDA and OP hold no document of title for that place and thereafter, action of OP in forfeiting the earnest money of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by complainant vide order dated 03.11.2015, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. In these circumstances, we are convinced with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for complainant and case law produced by him. Complainant has fully succeeded in proving his case and is entitled for refund of money deposited by him as price of plot. OPs are liable for deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed with directions to OP to refund of Rs.1,80,000/- the amount deposited by complainant with them as price of the plot along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of its payment by complainant to OP till its final realization. OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses…… ”.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the OP launched a project for development of colony at Sugar Mill Site, Faridkot, as PUDA Enclave. The complainant applied for one residential plot measuring 200 Sq. yard in General Category and paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- i.e. 10% of total price of land as earnest money. The draw of lots was held and complainant was declared as successful bidder and letter of intent No.10529 dated 26.12.2013 was issued in favour of the complainant. The colony was to be developed within 2 years and the possession of plot was to be delivered after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of allotment. After receiving the letter of intent, the complainant approached the OP and requested to show the documents of title in favour of PUDA but they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and also failed to carry out any development work at