ESTATE OFFICER Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these First Appeals, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), Estate Officer of Jalandhar Development Authority/PUDA, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of the orders, both dated 15.02.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaints No. 213 of 2014 and 214 of 2014, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants in these Appeals. By the impugned orders, while holding that the cancellation of Letters of Intent, issued to the Complainants, was legally unsustainable and amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant herein, the State Commission has accepted the Complaints, with a direction to the Appellant to accept 15% of the amount along with surcharge and penal interest, as referred to in Clause-3 of the Letters of Intent, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said orders, and pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses in each of the Complaints.

(2.) Since all the Appeals arise on similar set of background facts, and the Opposite Party being same in both the Complaints, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 1752 is treated as the lead case and the facts, referred to hereinafter, are taken from the said Appeal.

(3.) In response to a Scheme, christened as O.U.V.G.L., launched by the Appellant/Opposite Party in the Complaint(s), the Complainants had applied for allotment of residential plots. On 09.02.2011, the draw of lots was held, wherein the Complainants were declared successful and plots admeasuring 400/300 sq. yards in Seed Farm, Kapurthala, were allotted to them. As stipulated in the terms and conditions of the Letters of Intent, the Complainants were required to deposit 15% of the total sale consideration within 30 days from the date of the said letters. Subject to surcharge @ 1.5% upto 30 days, 2% upto 60 days, 2.50% upto 90 days and 3% upto 180 days, on the amount due, and penal interest @ 18% p.a. for the delayed period, there was also a provision for extension of time to make the said deposit, for which the allottees were required to make a written request within the aforesaid period of 30 days. On account of shortage of funds, the Complainants addressed their respective letters dated 27.04.2011 to the Appellant, praying for extension of time from 30 days to 180 days. When they did not receive any response on the said requests from the Appellant and 30 days time was not sufficient for arranging the funds, on 30.05.2011 they sent another letter to the Appellant, praying for extension of time by 180 days. On their visit to the office of the Appellant, they were informed that their request had been forwarded to the higher authorities and the decision thereon would be informed to them as and when the same would be received. Subsequently also the Complainants vide their letters dated 04.04.2012 requested the Appellant for doing the needful but no decision was conveyed to them. Finally, when on 17.05.2012 the Complainants visited the office of the Appellant, they learnt that the aforesaid Letters of Intent were cancelled and the earnest money was forfeited. In the aforesaid background, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in wrongly cancelling the Letters of Intent, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the State Commission. The Complainants had prayed for a direction to the Appellant to restore the said Letters of Intent and pay to each of them Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical sufferings/litigation costs.