SATINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEMBERBRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for allotment of an Industrial plot in Focal Point, Phase VIII -B, Mohali and he was allotted plot N0.DI8O measuring 2500 sq. yards at Industrial Focal Point, SAS Nagar, Phase VIII vide letter of intent dated 5.5.2000. The complainant submits that the said plot was not in a position to serve the purpose for which it was allotted, therefore, this plot was subsequently changed to Plot No.D -194 vide letter of intent /allotment dated 20.5.2000 but the same plot was also unfit for its usage and could not be brought into any use as the high tension electric wire were passing/ crossing over the plot. The complainant visited the office of the OPs for redressal of his grievances but to no avail. The complainant had paid margin money and instalment, however, the possession was not delivered and therefore, he served a legal notice vide registered post dated 26.6.2003. However no action was taken on the said legal notice and the complainant approached the OPs time nd again but no satisfactory explanation was received from the OPs. After the allotment of the above said plot, the complainant paid the instalment as required and also requested the OPs to allot alternative plot but the possession of the plot or allotment alternative plot was not made till date which prejudiced the right of the complaint and the same resulted in deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The OPs misrepresented and did not disclose that a high tension wire was passing over the allotted plot. The OP No. 3 promised to remove the high tension wire in couple of months but in vain. Therefore, OP No. 3 asked the complainant to approach OP No. 2 and narrated the position, who promised to look into the matter and arrange an alternative plot in case the high tension wire was not removed. The OPs neither removed high tension wire nor offered alternative plot despite repeated representations and meetings. The complainant had already paid all the due instalments to OPs and even if any instalment due, complainant is ready to pay the same. Ultimately in the month of November, 2008 the OPs finally rsfused to redress the grievances of the complainant. After receiving unsatisfactory response from OPs, the complainant served another registered legal notice dated 26.11.2008 but the same was not replied by the OPs. Hence, this complaint that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(2.) IN the reply, the OPs at the outset took preliminary objection that the complaint is hopelessly time burred. On merits it has been admitted that the complainant was allotted the plot for which he made request to adjust him somewhere else as the same was situated in remote corner upon which he was allotted Plot No. D -194 on 7.6.2000 on the original terms and conditions of the letter of intent dated 5.5.2000. It has been denied that he deposited any money except the earnest money and as he failed to make the down payment of Rs. 6,18,000 within the permissible period of 45 days, he was issued show cause notice dated 7.6.2000. It has been submitted that as he failed to discharge his duty under clause 36 of the LOI, the LOI/offer of allotment was withdrawn on 30.5.2002. It has been denied that any request for further change of plot or removal of high tension wires was ever received from the complainant. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

(3.) IN support of its contention the complainant placed on file Annexures P -1 to P -5, whereas the OPs have filed Annexures -R -1 to R -8 in support of their version.