STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 16.05.2023 Reserved on : 12.12.2025 Date of Decision : 05.01.2026 Manohar Lal Sehgal aged 74 years s/o Sh.Balwant Rai R/o H.No.453, Shastri Nagar, J.P.Nagar, P.O.Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.

….Appellant/Complainant.

Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Jalandhar City through its Executive Officer.

….…Respondent/Opposite Party First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar in CC No.291 of 2020.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

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:-

For the appellant : Sh.Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Ms.Harleen Kaur, Advocate with Sh.Manohar Lal Sehgal, in person For the respondent : Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER :

The Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed

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

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Opposite party had advertised for allotment of plots in the Surya Enclave Extension Development Scheme (94.97 Acre) in Jalandhar. They had promised for ultra-modern facilities in the said development scheme. The Complainant had applied for 100 Sq.Ft. plot by paying 10% earnest money of Rs.1,70,000/- after availing loan from Union Bank of India, Jalandhar. However, after applying for the said plot, the Complainant had visited the office of the opposite party to enquire about the status of the draw in the year 2012. At that time, he was leaving India for some personal reason. He was informed that his name was in the waiting list of candidates and he would be notified in case he was successful in the draw of plots. The Complainant had to go out of India again on 23.09.2013 and he had returned on 23.09.2014. At that time, he came to know about his being successful in the said draw for the plots. The allotment letter had already been sent at his residential address. He had mentioned his email details on the prescribed application form bearing no.087458 for the purpose of correspondence. However, the opposite party had failed to communicate about his allotment well in time. The delay was caused by the opposite party itself for no fault on his part. By the time, the Complainant came to know about the allotment, it had already expired. He had approached the opposite party a number of times in this context by paying personal visits as well as through telephonic calls, but to no avail. He was eventually compelled to write a letter to the Chairman of Jalandhar Improvement Trust and its Executive Officer in the year 2014. Thereafter, on guidance of opposite party, he had written a letter dated 31.03.2015 to the Secretary, Local bodies at Chandigarh to know about the fate of the allotment. He had also requested the concerned authority for the possession of the said plot. He was made to run from pillar to post for re-allotment of the plot. In the month of January 2015, he further made a payment for an amount of Rs.3,76,000/- and other additional amounts accrued over the years. Eventually, the Complainant had received the allotment letter. He had agreed to the terms and conditions of the sale of the plot. However, despite full payment and assurances, the plot was not developed. The possession was not handed over. The Complaina