BALJIT SINGH SANDHU S/O. S. JAGIR SINGH, ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(DEVELOPMENT) R/O. GURU HAR RAI AVENUE, OPPOSITE KHALSA COLLEGE, AMRITSAR PUNJAB Vs. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, JALANDHAR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/petitioner applied to the respondent for the allotment of a residential plot in its Surya Enclave Extension Development Scheme. In the draw of lots held on 04.11.2011, plot no. 13C in the aforesaid scheme was allotted to him. Pursuant to the draw of lots, allotment letter dated 02.04.2012 was issued to the complainant requiring him to deposit 25% of the value of the plot i.e. Rs.1862450.00 by 01.05.2012. The complainant however, failed to make payment by the aforesaid date and sought extension of time for this purpose. This is also the case of the petitioner/complainant that though he was willing to deposit 25% of the sale price, he, on visiting the site, found that there was no development working going on at the site and it was not possible even to identify plot no. 13C, which had allotted to him. This is further the case of the petitioner/complainant that the original owners of the land which was to be developed into plots, had obtained a stay order from the High Court against their dispossession from the said land and therefore, there was no likelihood of immediate implementation of the scheme. The complainant/petitioner then approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the amount of Rs.8,50,000.00 which he had paid to the respondent along with compensation etc. The aforesaid amount had been paid by him while applying for the allotment of the plot.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It was inter-alia stated in the reply that the complainant had defaulted in making payment of 25% of the sale consideration as per the terms of the letter of allotment to him. It was pointed out in the written version that besides paying 25% of the sale consideration by 01.05.2012, the petitioner/complainant was required to pay the balance amount in instalments on or before the due dates which had been duly intimated to him. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner/complainant had also directly approached the Government of Punjab for extension of time for making payment and the Government vide its memo dated 18.04.2013, had granted the requisite permission for depositing 25% of the sale value along with other charges. The petitioner/complainant however, failed to pay the said amount.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 21.04.2014, directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.8,50,000.00 to the complainant/petitioner, along with interest @ 9% per annum and cost of litigation quantified at Rs.3,000.00.