LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs Jagdev Singh

-VIDE this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals bearing Appeal No. 1143 of 2001 (R. B. T. No. 315 of 2008) and Appeal No. 1086 of 2001 (R. B. T. No. 332 of 2008) received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against common order dated 7. 9. 2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 105 of 2001: Sh. Jagdev Singh v. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust.

BRIEFLY stated the averments made in the complaint are that the Complainant purchased Plot No. 445e measuring 150 Sq. Yards in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana under the scheme of OP. The sale deed was excuted in his favour on 28. 11. 1994. As per the rules, sale deed is executed after receipt of all dues, which he had paid. Along with the sale deed, site plan was also appended and he got the same sanctioned for construction. Since the construction could be raised after taking the possession, the Complainant sought possession of the plot by demarking it on the spot. He even gave a reminder dated 15. 12. 1994 but in spite of that OP failed to give the demarcation or possession. The Complainant then requested Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana through two letters dated 30. 6. 1997 and 18. 7. 1997 to intervene for delivery of the possession. However, nothing happened and he received a notice dated 23. 2. 1999 vide which he was asked to explain reasons for not raising construction on the said plot. It was also stated that if no explanation was received within 15 days, the plot would be resumed. The Complainant replied to the notice on 6. 3. 1999 mentioning therein non delivery of possession as the reason for non-construction. However, due to a threat from the OP regarding resumption of the plot, he had to deposit Rs. 35,970 as non construction charges for the period from 1995 till 1999. Even thereafter he had been requesting the OP to deliver the possession but the same was not done. Ultimately, he was called upon through a letter dated 17. 5. 1998 to get the demarcation on any working day and in the last week of May 1999, the possession of the plot was delivered to him. It has further been stated by the Complainant that on possession, it was found that the plot measured only 149 Sq. Yards whereas he had been charged the price of 150 Sq. Yards. He, therefore, requested the OP to make up the deficiency in the area. Further, it has been stated that he cannot raise construction as his site plan was sanctioned on 20. 1. 1995 and this sanction had elapsed consequent to his inability to raise construction for the aforesaid reasons. The Complainant has, therefore, stated that he is entitled to refund of Rs. 35,970 illegally recovered from him as non-construction charges and he is also entitled to refund of Rs. 10,000, which is the price of 1 Sq. Yard of land delivered less to him and further, he is entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,000, which he will have to now send due to escalation in the cost of construction. Thus, in the complaint, the Complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the above mentioned amount along with Rs. 2,548, which he had paid for getting the site plan sanctioned a second time and another Rs. 20,000 as damages. The version of OPs is that the Complainant deposited the non-construction charges without any protest and he now cannot claim its refund. It has also been clarified that the original allottee of the plot Sh. Baldev Raj had requested for extension of time for construction on 27. 4. 1984 and his request was accepted and, accordingly, the time was extended up to 4. 5. 1985 to raise construction. After that the original allottee continued to deposit non construction charges without any objection or protest and, therefore, even the Complainant who had stopped into his shoes, had deposited the non-construction charges. It has further been stated that execution of the sale deed on 28. 11. 1994, means that the possession of the plot had been delivered to him. It has also been clarified by the OP that there is no provision in the allotment letter that the construction will be raised after taking possession of the plot and it has further been clarified that demarcation was given to the original allottee and, therefore, it is presumed that the possession was already delivered. OP has also denied receipt of letters written by the Complainant on 29. 11. 1994 and 5. 12. 1994 and it has been categorically denied that the Complainant had been demanding possession of the plot.

In their analysis of the complaint, the learned District Forum has referred to letter No. 1311 filed as Exhibit 28 and according to which the construction was to be raised within three years after getting the demarcation and site plan sanctioned from the OP. Further it has referred to Exhibit C-7 i. e. a letter through which the Complainant made a request to the OP for delivery of possession and C-8, which is a letter written by the Complainant regarding non delivery of possession. The learned District Forum further referred to a letter of OP dated 17. 5. 99 telling the Complainant that he could take possession of the plot on any working day and as per the learned District Forum, this letter dated 17. 5. 99 clearly proves that the OP had not delivered possession to the Complainant inspite of repeated requests. The learned District Forum, therefore, also held that this letter of OP clearly shows that the possession and demarcation had not been given. Had the same been done, the OP would have mentioned the same in this letter. The learned District Forum was, therefore, of the view that the OP was not justified in claiming non-construction charges from 1995 onwards. As regards the grouse of the Complainant that he was handed over 1 Sq. Yard less of the area, the learned District Forum has recorded that he has not produced on file any document to prove this allegation of his and only some letters written by him are on record. In the view of the learned District Forum, if the area of the plot was not complete, he should have got this fact recorded at the time of taking possession. However, there is nothing on file to this effect and, as such, the learned District Forum declined to award any compensation for the same. As regards prayer of the Complainant regarding compensation for escalation in the cost of construction, the learned District Forum held that the same cannot be allowed as the Complainant himself got the site plan passed late and as soon as the site plan was sanctioned, he raised the construction. In view of this analysis of the learned District Forum, it vide the impugned order directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 35,970 recovered on account of non construction charges along with interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund and the OP was also directed to pay Rs. 500 as cost. The OP was to comply with the order within one month of the date of receipt of copy of order.

AGGRIEVED by this order of learned District Forum, the OP as well as the Complainant had filed separate appeals before Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same have now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The appeal bearing No. 1143/2001/rbt No. 315 of 2008 filed by OP is for setting aside of impugned order whereas the appeal No. 1086 of 2001/rbt No. 332 of 2008 filed by the Complainant is for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the complaint. Mr. Jaswinder Randhawa, Advocate proxy for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Complainant Sh. Jagdev Singh whereas Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate represented the OP Ludhiana Improvement Trust. We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard both the sides.

THE main issues that need to be discussed are whether the OP was entitled to seek non construction fee from the Complainant for the period from 1995 to 1999? secondly, has the Complainant been handed over 1 Sq. Yard less of area in the plot and if so, consequent relief to which he is entitled? Whether the Complainant is entitled to be granted any compensation for the escalation in the cost of construction? And lastly is he required to be compensated for the renewal charges of site plan? Coming to the first issue, from the file, it is evident that the OP has led no evidence to prove its plea that the physical possession of the plot including its demarcation had been done to the original owner. Furthermore, letter dated 17. 5. 1999 also does not make any mention of the fact of possession having been delivered to the original allottee. Thus, we agree with the view of the learned District Forum that this letter clearly proves that the OP had not delivered the possession to the Complainant in spite of repeated requests and, therefore, they were not justified in claiming non construction charges from 1995 because as per Exhibit C-27, OP had clearly asked the Complainant not to raise the construction without getting the demarcation. In view of the foregoing, we are in consonance with the view of the learned District Forum that the OP was not entitled in claim non-construction charges amounting to Rs. 35,970 for the period from 1995 to 1999 and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity in this context. Coming to the next issue of handing over of less area of the plot by 1 Sq. Yard, even though the Complainant has claimed that 1 Sq. Yard less of area was handed over, the OP in its written reply has clearly stated that full area of 150 Sq. Yards was handed over to the Complainant. There is no evidence placed on record by the Complainant to prove that 1 Sq. Yard less of area had been handed over to him and thus again, we agree with the view of the learned District Forum that he is not entitled to refund of Rs. 10,000 as claimed by him and, therefore, in our considered view, no interference is required in the impugned order on this count as well.

THE Complainant''s claim is that he had to get the site plan remade due to delay in handing over of possession and demarcation of the plot by the OP and, therefore, there was a consequent delay in the construction and he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 towards escalation in the cost of construction. The learned District Forum has correctly held that the Complainant himself got the site plan passed late. The onus of getting the site plan renewed/re-sanctioned squarely lay on the Complainant. It is also on record that the construction was done immediately after the site plan got sanctioned. In this view of the matter, again we agree with the view held by the learned District Forum that the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation on this count as the delay had been caused due to his own negligence in letting the sanction of the site plan lapse. Furthermore, in this context, it is also relevant that no evidence has been produced by the Complainant to justify this claim amounting to Rs. 1,50,000.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm clear that the impugned order is just, fair and legal. The Complainant has been rightly granted due refund and compensation along with interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund as well as the cost of litigation and he has not been able to make out any case for enhanced/additional compensation. Consequently, both the appeals i. e. RBT No. 315 of 2008 filed by the OP and RBT No. 332 of 2008 filed by the Complainant are dismissed as they lack substance and the impugned order is upheld.

Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeals dismissed.