GREAATER LUDHIANA AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASEEM GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (the Act'), against the Order dtd. 1/6/2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab. ('State Commission') in CC No. 883/2017, wherein the State Commission allowed the Complaint.

(2.) For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

(3.) The brief facts, as per the complainant, are that in 2012, the OPs advertised a Scheme for 601 Residential Plots at Sugar Mill Site, Jagraon. Mrs Kanta, the wife of Shri Gulshan Kumar, applied for a 500 Sq Yd plot priced at Rs.42,50,000..00 She was successful in the draw held on 10/1/2013 and the OPs issued a letter of intent on 28/2/2013 for Plot No. 3, after receiving 25% of the total tentative price, i.e. Rs.10,62,500.00..00 An allotment letter was issued on 29/8/2015. The complainant purchased the plot from Kanta, with OP's permission and a re-allotment letter dtd. 21/12/2015 was issued in his name, subject to the conditions of original allotment and relevant laws. The complainant then paid Rs.9,13,750.00 to OPs by cheque dtd. 1/9/2016 and made another payment of Rs.10,00,000.00 on 22/12/2016. He continued paying instalments thereafter, amounting to a total of Rs.29,76,250.00 towards the price of the plot. Under Clause 4 of the allotment letter, possession was to be delivered within 90 days of date of allotment i.e. 29/8/2015. But, despite repeated approaches, possession was delayed. Information obtained under the RTI Act revealed that the OPs had only applied for approval for the 100'-00" wide approach road on 6/7/2016, over a year after the allotment, and no permission was sought from the Department of Forest, further delaying road construction. Furthermore, the development work at the site was incomplete, with no sewerage connection or boundary wall in place. As on the date of filing the complaint, there was no road connectivity, including 100'-00" wide approach road, and the development works remained unfinished. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by OPs and filed the present complaint.