w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Punjab Urban Planning & Development v/s Deepak Grover & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC300616

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC166069

Company & Directors' Information:- DEEPAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231RJ2000PTC016781

Company & Directors' Information:- R K URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC223591

Company & Directors' Information:- A. B. URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH2015PTC267677

Company & Directors' Information:- DEEPAK PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51109UP1951PTC001208

    Revision Petition No. 3223 of 2018 in Appeal No. 442 of 2018

    Decided On, 01 July 2019

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner: Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.

Judgment Text

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 9.8.2018 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the appeal of the development authority (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority) was dismissed and the Order of the District Forum, Faridkot was affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants had purchased a plot No. 8 measuring 200 sq. yards from Mr. Gagan Bajaj (original allottee of the plot) under the scheme of opposite party. The plot was transferred in favour of the complainants by depositing transfer fee of Rs. 37,750 and clearing all the instalments by 24.2.2014. The complainants requested the opposite party to execute the registration of the plot in their name and to deliver the possession also but the opposite party failed to do so and kept the complainants waiting. Thereafter, finding no hope, the complainants requested for refund of deposited amount along with interest but the opposite party did not respond.

3. Being aggrieved due to alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum.

4. The opposite party – authority filed a written version and contended that the possession had already been delivered to the complainants. The execution of sale deed was pending before the Chief Administrator, Punjab for consideration on the point of security threat to session house, Faridkot, which is adjoining the official residence of District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

Also, the Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court wrote a letter dated 4.12.2012 and restrained to make any construction in the said area.

5. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the following observations:

“9. It is admitted by OPs that complainants have made entire payment of sale consideration pertaining to plot in question to OPs and nothing is due towards them. It is also admitted by OPs that complainant wrote requests letters to them for delivering the possession of plot to them and for execution of sale deed in favour of complainants. Plea taken by OPs that file of complainant is pending and is still under consideration has no legs to stand upon as order dated 4.12.2012 has been quashed vide order dated 3.12.2014 of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12630 of 2012. Moreover, when decision in this regard has already been made out, then there is no reason for OPs for keeping the file under consideration. Nowhere in the reply and in arguments, OPs have denied the receipt of full payment or applications by complainants for delivering the possession and for execution of sale deed. It is also observed that OPs did not start any work over the site to develop the area and also there are no basic amenities such as roads, streets, water supply, sewerage and electricity supply etc. in said area, which amounts to deficiency in service.

10. After careful perusal of the record and in the light of aforementioned discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not delivering the possession of plot to complainants in stipulated time and for keeping the file under consideration for long span of time and action of OPs in not providing basic amenities like sewerage, lighting, etc. at site in question as per their own terms and conditions also amounts to trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for complainant. Complainants have fully succeeded in proving their case and are entitled for refund of money deposited by them as price of plot. OPs are liable for deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 17,67,675 i.e. the amount deposited by complainants with them as sale consideration for plot along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its payment by complainants to them till its final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.”

6. Being aggrieved, the first appeal was filed by the PUDA - opposite party before the State Commission. There was delay of 269 days in filing the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner – opposite party filed this revision petition. The State Commission dismissed the appeal as it was barred by limitation.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage. She submitted that the allotment in question was governed by the provisions contained in Punjab Regional Town Planning Development Act, 1995. She has brought my attention to Sections 43 and 45 of the Act, dealing with the disposal of land and resumption and forfeiture for breach of transfer (allotment).

8. Perused the entire material on record. Admittedly, it is clear from the record that the opposite party did not deliver the possession of plot to the complainant within the stipulated time and just kept the file under consideration for a long period. The opposite parties also failed to provide basic amenities like electricity, sewerage disposal at the site in question. Thus

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

it amounts to an unfair trade practice. It is pertinent that the opposite party approached the State Commission after huge delay of 269 days and the State Commission rightly rejected to condone the delay. I find the impugned Order dated 9.8.2018 of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. I do not find jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice in the State Commission’s impugned order. 9. Based on foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit. The revision petition is dismissed in limine. Revision Petition dismissed.