Jalandhar Improvement Trust Through Its Executive Officer, Jalandhar Punjab vs Vikas Mittal

Subhash Chandra, J

This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘The Act’) assails the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ‘State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1647 of 2014 arising out of the order dated 05.11.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, ‘District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 478 of 2013.

The brief facts of the case, as called from the record, are that the scheme of allotment of free hold residential plots was floated on 08.08.2011 and was closed on 01.09.2011.  The respondent applied for a plot and on 26.12.2011 he was allotted plot no. 207-D having area of 200 sq. yds.  The respondent was required to make payment within 30 days and in 5 equated half yearly instalments up to 24.06.2014. Allotment letter No. JIT/2789 dated 26.12.2011 was issued and as per condition no. 16, 5% discount was available to the complainant if respondent deposit the entire amount of Rs.30,69,450/- within 30 days till 21.01.2012. A scheme of payments of five instalments was also provided under which payments were made. The petitioner states that he came to know that the land in question was covered with different litigations and, therefore, he moved the petition for refund of the money deposited. However, the petitioner informed that the refund could not be made.  On 20.07.2012 respondent was informed by the petitioner that possession of plots would be given after 2½ years.  The respondent’s contention is that there was no such condition in the brochure of the scheme and he has, therefore, sought either possession or refund of the amount deposited of Rs.16,62,332/- along with Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and deficiency on part of the respondent.

The District Forum allowed the complaint holding as under:

In view of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted and opposite party trust is directed to refund Rs.16,62,332/- to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of deposit of respective amounts till the date payment.  It is clarified that interest amount is being granted by way of compensation.  The complainant is also awarded Rs.3,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Petitioner then approached the State Commission in F.A. No. 1647 of 2014 pleading that although a specific offer had been made for allotment of an alternate plot to the complainant of the same area of land for the same amount, the District Forum did not permit the petitioner to offer the alternative site. It was held that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum. After hearing the appellant, State Commission dismissed the appeal and holding as under:

In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.16,00,000/- with this Commission in the appeal.  These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent / complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.

Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent / complainant within 90 days from the despatch of the order to the parties.

This order has been impugned before us by the petitioner in the present revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.

The petitioner has contended that District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The petitioner was to hand over possession within the instalment period as per the terms and conditions of the allotment.  However, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated 08.03.2011 in CWP No. 3559 of 2011 directed to maintain status quo till further orders.  Thereafter, in C.M. No. 3404 of 2011 in CWP No. 3559 of 2011 status quo regarding possession was ordered. The total area involved in the Writ Petition was about 24.33 acres.  However, possession of land which was in dispute was not taken because of the pendency of the Writ Petition.  It is stated that as per the scheme possession was to be given till 24.06.2014. However, respondent filed the complaint before District Forum prior to that date.  This fact was not considered by both the fora below.  The petitioner also states that as per terms and conditions of the brochure, the respondent was not entitled to the refund of the amount.  The complainant was not entitled to refund of earnest money and the petitioner has relied upon Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab in CWP No. 1684 of 2014 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 10.11.2014.  The petitioner also contended that the development works were going on in the scheme as the stay was limited to 24.33 acres only.  After the dismissal of the Writ Petitions and completion of the development works, the possession was offered to the allottees in February, 2016.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been unfair trade practice by the petitioner.  In view of the fact that an alternative plot was offered, the impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum cannot be sustained in the eyes of law according to the petitioner.  Therefore, the petitioner contends that the present revision petition is liable to be accepted and the orders of the fora below be set aside.  It is also stated that the value of the plot was Rs.30,69,450/- and the District Forum acted without pecuniary jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint.

During the course of arguments it was brought to our notice by the respondent that this case is squarely covered by the order of the State Commission, Punjab in C.C. No. 81 of 2013 dated 30.07.2014 as upheld by this Commission in "Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. versus Munish Dev" reported in IV (2015) CPJ 309 (NC) which held that since the Jalandhar Improvement Trust was aware of the status quo order passed by Hon’ble High Court regarding possession of the property of land in question, it should not have gone ahead with the allotment of lands under this scheme of the residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar.  The order of this Commission was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9295 of 2015.

As regards the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed did not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. However, from the records it is manifest that the cost of the plot in question was Rs.30,69,450/-. As per the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum is upto Rs.50 lakh. Even if the total cost of the plot is beyond Rs.20 lakhs, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum as per the old Act, we are left with no alternative but to uphold the concurrent findings of Fora below, as the case is covered by the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum as per new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and remanding of the matter to the District Forum would be meaningless and serve no useful purpose but only lead to further harassment of the respondent. The respondent had already deposited Rs.16,62,332/- as on 06.12.2012 which includes 25% of the plot, cess charge and site and agreement plan and a very long time has since elapsed but nothing has been done till date. Further, the respondent has therefore, stopped making further payments.

While agreeing with the concurrent findings of both the fora, and in the interest of justice, we confirm the order of the District Forum. The order be complied within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.