PROF. BALWINDER SINGH VIRK vs ESTATE OFFICER, MIG FLATS

IT is an appeal against the order dated 2.8.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts taken from the record are that the appellant/complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied to the respondent/opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) for allotment of MIG independent partially finished duplex house at Dugri Phase 3, Ludhiana in response to the advertisement of the opposite party. The complainant had procured the application form from Punjab & Sind Bank, Batala and had deposited the same at the same Bank on 26.8.1997 along with earnest money of Rs. 60,000/- under physically handicapped category. Complainant was successful in the draw of lots held at Ludhiana and was allotted house No. 261 at Phase-3, Dugri. He was issued an allotment letter on 21.10.1998, intimating the schedule as well as terms and conditions of the payment. The complainant had deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 72,550/- to make 25% of the total cost on 21.11.1998 within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. He was to take the possession within three months from the issue of allotment letter after making the payment. He had come to Ludhiana on 21.1.1999 to take possession, but due to demise of a staff member, concerned staff was not available and he could not take the possession. Later on, the complainant had visited the site and found that even the basic infra-structural facilities were lacking. There was no road to the houses. Sewerage, water supply and electricity were not available. Ultimately, the complainant had requested the opposite party to refund the money as per terms and conditions of allotment or to reduce the cost of the house. According to the complainant as per para No. 12 of the terms and conditions if the allottee failed to take the possession within three months, the allotment was to be cancelled and the amount not exceeding 10% of the total consideration money could be forfeited. Total consideration of the complainant was Rs. 1,32,550/- and as such 10% of the amount would have been deducted, but the opposite party deducted Rs. 53,000/- which is 10% of the total cost. It was stated that the opposite party had indulged in unfair trade practice. Ultimately, a prayer was made that amount of Rs. 53,000/- be directed to be refunded along with interest @ 18% and compensation. The opposite party in the reply had taken preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable since the complainant was not a consumer; that the complaint was false and frivolous; that the complainant was himself guilty of wrongful act and conduct and did not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was admitted that the complainant had applied for the allotment of a house and had deposited the amount as alleged and that he was allotted a plot. It was denied that there were no basic amenities. According to the opposite party, the basic amenities like water and sewerage had already been provided. It was stated that the complainant had failed to take the possession within the stipulated period. It was then stated that the complainant himself was not interested to take the possession. It was then stated that the balance amount after deducting 10% from the total consideration was sent to the complainant. He was not entitled to any relief and the deduction of 10% was legal and valid. It was ultimately stated that amount of Rs. 53,020/- was rightly deducted and the complaint was sought to be dismissed.

After hearing the complainant and the Counsel for the opposite party, District Forum dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard the appellant Sh. Balwinder Singh Virk who is present in person and have gone through the record of the case. Sh. Balwinder Singh Virk appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) who was present in person before us submitted that it was unfair on the part of the respondent-PUDA (hereinafter called the opposite party) to deduct 10% of the total cost of the house. He further prayed that opposite party be ordered to refund the whole amount of Rs. 1,32,550/- along with 18% interest and costs borne by him. We are unable to find any force in the submissions made by the complainant.

IT has been admitted by the complainant that MIG flat was allotted to him and after the allotment he had deposited an amount of Rs. 32,550/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 60,000/- which was deposited by him as earnest money. IT remains undisputed that in the allotment letter the opposite party had made an offer to the complainant that in case he refused to accept the allotment of the house he could do so within 30 days of the offer and in that case only 10% of the amount deposited will be deducted. The complainant did not exercise that option. Rather he deposited an amount of Rs. 32,550/- in order to get the flat and for that purpose 25% of the amount was deposited. IT was only later on that the complainant had applied for cancellation of the allotment. IT is provided under the conditions of allotment that in case of breach of any condition of allotment letter, regulations or non-payment of amount with the penal interest the flat shall be liable to be resumed and in that case 10% of the total consideration money shall be forfeited. Condition No. 12 of the allotment letter clearly provides that if the flat is later on cancelled then 10% of the total consideration has to be forfeited. Undisputedly the total consideration in the present case was Rs. 5,30,200/-. Opposite party had forfeited an amount of Rs. 53,000/- which was not more than 10% of the total consideration. Opposite party had, thus, rightly deducted 10% of the total consideration. In this view of the matter there was no force in the statement of the complainant that he should be refunded the whole amount of Rs. 1,32,500/- along with interest. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs in the circumstances of this case. We observe in the end that the complainant can approach the opposite party for sympathetic consideration about the reduction of the forfeited amount, if the law so permits. Appeal dismissed.