PARMINDERJEET SINGH Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BATHINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20.11.2015 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 62 of 2013.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the respondent had floated a scheme 49.5 acre at Bibi Wala Road and advertised it in the newspapers claiming that the colony would be developed with parks, wide roads, footpaths and drinking water and so on. The petitioner applied to purchase a plot of 239 square yards @ Rs.10,000/- per square yard from the respondent for a total price of Rs.23,90,000/-. The petitioner got plot no. 12 vide intimation letter no. 2230 on 23.10.2007 from the respondent. This plot was given by the respondent to the petitioner on payment of instalments and the petitioner deposited 25% of the amount of Rs.5,97,500/- and Rs.95,600/- as 4% cess with the respondent on 03.08.2007. The respondent promised the plot holders that development like street, roads, sewerage, water pipes etc., would be carried out quickly within one month or two months, but to no effect. The petitioner was unable to construct on the plot, as there were no roads reaching the plot and as such no vehicle could go up to the plot as there were deep trenching, sand dunes and there was no possibility of development whatsoever even after five year thereon. Many letters were written by the petitioner in this regard to the respondent but to no effect. The petitioner wrote letter on 03.09.2010 to the respondent under Right to Information Act for getting information regarding development, but the respondent intentionally detained this letter it was further averred that the petitioner was not bound to make the instalments without getting the amenities of life, as committed by the respondent. The respondent had not provided the basic amenities in the above said plot and threatened the petitioner by sending letters to resume the plot. The respondent issued letter no. 564 dated 16.03.2012 to the petitioner regarding resumption of the plot allotted to him. The alleged letters mentioned in the letter no. 564 were in fact never issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has thus, prayed that the respondent be directed to withdraw the letter no. 564 of resumption of plot and to provide basic amenities like roads, streets, water pipes, etc., and to pay 20% interest on Rs.7.00 lakh from 03.08.2007 till date which has been deposited with the respondent as 25% amount of total cost of the plot and to pay Rs.5.00 lakh as compensation for mental harassment to the petitioner and to pay Rs.5.00 lakh as difference of cost of construction on account of delay in the alleged development.

(3.) On notice, the respondent contested the complaint of the petitioner. Respondent has stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. Any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent was denied. The petitioner was alleged to be not the consumer of the respondent. The petitioner was alleged to be estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint on merits. It was admitted that the development scheme known as 49.5 acre regarding land located near Bibi Wala Road framed by the Improvement Trust, Bathinda and advertisement for the sale of different residential/ commercial plots were given to the newspapers. Open auction of residential and commercial property was held on 03.08.2007 in the office of the respondent after giving due publicity. The petitioner took part in auction by giving his bids along with other bidders. The bid of the petitioner being the highest @ Rs.10,000/- per square yard with regard to 239 square yards of land forming part of 49.5 acre scheme was accepted and total cost of the plot was worked out to Rs.23,90,000/-. The petitioner deposited Rs.5,97,600/- being 1/4 of the total amount of Rs.23,90,000/- and petitioner was required to deposit the remaining of the amount in six monthly instalments along with 12% interest, as mentioned in the letter dated 23.10.2007. The respondent denied that it had promised the plot holders for development of streets, roads, sewerage, water pipe etc., within a month or two months. The sewerage, water and street light facilities have already been provided. The respondent further stated that letter no. 672 dated 30.03.2010, letter no. 1804 dated 11.08.2010, letter no. 2231 dated 24.09.2010 and letter no. 2075 dated 29.08.2011 were sent by the respondent to the petitioner for depositing of the outstanding amount. These letters were asserted to be genuine and authentic. The petitioner deposited Rs.7.00 lakh only, out of which Rs.5,04,600/- being 1/4 of the bid amount was deposited on 03.08.2007 and thereafter no other instalments has been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent. The petitioner has not paid the instalments as per the schedule and hence, the plot of the petitioner was resumed for non-payment of instalments. The respondent controverted the other averments of the petitioner made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.