AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN the year 1963 the complainant booked a plot in Dayal Bagh, District Faridabad with O.P. 1 @ 25 per sq. yd. The cost was payable in instalments on the basis of the development work i.e., completion of roads, completion of sewer lines, completion of water lines etc. INspite of having paid the total cost of the plot the O.P. failed to carry out development work and did some superficial work to convince the purchasers. Subsequently the development was taken over by Faridabad Complex Administration by charging Rs. 180 per sq. yd. from the plot holders.
ON account of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the complainant has through this complaint sought direction to the O.P. to execute the sale deed of the plot in favour of O.P. 2 or in the alternative award damages amounting to Rs. 6,46,500 and Rs. 50,000 for mental harassment and agony. The amount of compensation of Rs. 6,46,500 has been assessed on the clandestine sale of the similar plots by the O.P. at this price. At the first instance O.Ps. have taken the objection that it was the association of the plot holders that had entered into transaction with them and not the complainant individually and, therefore, he is not the consumer qua the O.Ps. and since the complainant did not make the payment of the development charges fixed by the O.Ps. at Rs. 15 per sq. yd., the plot was not allotted to the complainant.
This objection does not hold water as the complainant was the sole beneficiary though the matter was being taken up on his behalf by the Association. Any person who is a beneficiary of service comes within the meaning of ''Consumer as defined by Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
IT is further pleaded by the O.P. 1 that the complainant did not fulfil the final terms offered by the O.P. on 8.9.1983 and, therefore, the plot could not be registered in his favour. According to the O.P. the following terms were agreed by the Association of the plot holders : (i) Those who have got their plots registered in their names, should take care of their plots themselves and the colonizer is not largely responsible if any encroachment is made by any body though he is morally looking after their plots. (ii) Those who have paid the full amount towards the cost of plot plus Rs. 4 P.S.Y, but have not got the plots registered in their favour, they should pay Rs. 15 P.S.Y. as maintenance charges. (iii) Those who have paid the cost price and some amount towards maintenance out of Rs. 4 P.S.Y. they should pay Rs. 25 P.S.Y. (excluding the balance amount). (iv) Those who have paid the cost of plot but not paid fully Rs. 4 P.S.Y. as maintenance, they should pay Rs. 30 P.S.Y. plus Rs. 4 towards maintenance charges. (v) Those who have not paid the cost of plot to full, they have no right to claim ownership of the plot as per terms of sale. However, in genuine and hard pressed cases, the colonizer may consider to refund of their amount paid less. Earnest money, as per Court''s judgment in a case contested by a plot holder.
On the contrary the complainant has pleaded that O.P. 1 being a colonizer was not in a position to have the clean and clear title on 16.10.1967 when the last payment of Rs. 450 was made, nor had he obtained any approval to the colony even upto 12.11.1968 as the matter was pending before the Sub-Judge of Dayal Bagh, Distt. Faridabad as the area was on Delhi-Mathura Road and there was a restriction of the building activity in the scheduled area under Urban Development Act, 1963. It has also been alleged that the O.P. 1 had executed the sale deed in favour of his relatives and later on made resale of some special plots to some needy persons and O.P. 2 had purchased the plot through sale deed for Rs. 3,86,000.
FROM the above conspectus of the facts of case it is clear that inspite of having received the full consideration amount, the O.P. 1 did not develop the colony for habitation for one reason or the other and ultimately the demand was raised that those who have not paid the maintenance charges they should pay Rs. 25 P.S.Y. as shown in the terms. Finally that the Faridabad Complex Administration charges further development charges @ Rs. 180 P.S.Y. from the plot holders as the colony was taken over by it. However, since the complainant was not registered with the O.P. 1 because he failed to pay charges @ Rs. 25 P.S.Y. He was not given the benefit of execution of conveyance deed and also because of non-payment of demand raised by the Faridabad Complex Administration. On the face of it the activity of O.P. 1 amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as for such a long time no development work was carried out in the colony and moreover when he sold this plot he did not have clean and clear title and that is why the Faridabad Complex Administration took over the possession for the development purpose, O.P. 1 had no business to sell the plots unless he had clear and clean title. So much so he continued receiving the payment after colony was taken over by the Faridabad Administration. By not developing the colony for years together O.P. is not only guilty of unfair trade practice but deficiency in service which means "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequancy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service".
IN the result, we allow the complaint by awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000.
PAYMENT shall be made within one month. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Complaint allowed.