RAKESH KUMAR Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsels for the parties agree that all these 66 appeals (Nos.288, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387 and 388 of 1999) be disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in all of them. Facts are being taken from Appeal No.288 of 1999.

(2.) The appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was an allottee/purchaser of flat No.56 (first floor) of the Double Storeyed Duplex Flats in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. Housing project in question was completed in the year 1998. The project in question was in accordance with a Self-financing Scheme as indicated in the letter of allotment issued in the year 1996 before the completion of the construction on the spot in accordance with which 25% of the total sale price was to be paid before hand while the balance amount was recoverable/payable in four equal instalments beginning from the year 1986 as per schedule of instalments attached with the letter of allotment. Admittedly, an agreement of sale was also executed between the parties in the year 1998 along with an indemnity bond before the possession of flat in question was handed over to the complainant after payment of the entire sale price. The following grievances were made by the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum) : (1) The flooring and wall plastering was defective resulting in cracks in walls while electric wiring/fitting and sanitary arrangement was not upto the mark. (2) There is an inordinate delay in the execution of the Transfer/sale Deed of the flat in question in favour of the petitioner. (3) The pricing pattern of the ground floor and first floor flats is irrational because the price of the upper flats should have been 30% less than the ground floor property. (4) The housing project being under the Self-Financing Scheme wherein petitioner/purchaser had provided a part of the sale price before hand, no interest should have been recoverable on the total sale price. (5) There is lack of proper civic amenities in the colony pertaining to street light, roads and storm-water drainage system. (6) The defective woodwork and wooden fixtures in the flat had resulted in incurring of substantial expenses by the petitioner which should be got refunded from the O. P.-Trust.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 25.2.1999 did not agree with any of the contentions made by the complainant except that O. P.- Trust was found to be deficient in service in not executing Sale-Deed in favour of the complainant within reasonable time after the admitted delivery of possession. Consequently, the District Forum directed the opposite party to execute the required Sale-Deed in favour of the complainant qua the flat in question within 90 days along with payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation-cum-costs of the proceedings.