Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 188 of 2014
Date of institution: 28.2.2014
Date of Decision: 17.11.2015
Manohar Lal Garg Son of Chranji Lal son of Sant Ram R/o Mandir Wali
Gali, Mansa, presently residing at Flat No. 3231, paradise Enclave, Sector
50-D, Chandigarh.
Appellant/OP No.1
Versus
1. Shama Rani wife of Sh. Prem Pal son of Suresh Kumar, Near Post
Office, Samana, District Patiala.
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Punjab State Urban Development Authority (PUDA) through its Chief
Administrator, Chandigarh (Notice not issued)
3. Punjab State Urban Development Authority (PUDA) through
Licensing Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 32, Mohali, Chandigarh
(Notice not issued)
4. Alka Garg Wife of Rishi Pal son of Banarsi Dass, resident of
Bhagwan Mahavir Street, Tehsil Road, Samana, District Patiala
(Notice not issued)
Respondent Nos.2 to 4/Op Nos. 2 to 4
First Appeal against the order dated 16.1.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. R.K. Jindal, Advocate
For respondent Nos.2&3 : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : Ex.-parte.
First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 2
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
This order will dispose of 13 appeals, particulars of which are as under:-
Sr. No. Appeal No. Party Names Consumer Date of
Complaint Decision of
No. the
complaints
(Appellant) (Respondents)
1. F.A. No. 188 of Manohar Lal Shama Rani & CC No. 144 16.1.2014 2014 Garg Others of 2013
2. F.A. No. 189 of Manohar Lal Vinit Goel & CC No. 146 16.1.2014 2014 Garg Others of 2013
3. F.A. No. 190 of Manohar Lal Santosh Rani CC No. 148 16.1.2014 2014 Garg & Others of 2013
4. F.A. No. 191 of Manohar Lal Geeta Garg & CC No. 147 16.1.2014 2014 Garg Others of 2013
5. F.A. No. 192 of Manohar Lal Manju Goyal & CC No. 145 16.1.2014 2014 Garg Others of 2013
6. F.A. No. 193 of Manohar Lal Chander CC No. 149 16.1.2014 2014 Garg Kanta & of 2013 Others
7. F.A. No. 194 of Manohar Lal Khuaish CC No. 150 16.1.2014 2014 Garg Kumar & of 2013 Others
8. F.A. No. 982 of Manohar Lal Hardeep CC No. 47 5.6.2014 2014 Garg Goyal & of 2014 Others
9. F.A. No. 983 of Manohar Lal Shivji Ram & CC No. 28 5.6.2014 2014 Garg Others of 2014
10. F.A. No. 984 of Manohar Lal Amrit Pal Garg CC No. 27 5.6.2014 2014 Garg & Others of 2014
11. F.A. No. 985 of Manohar Lal Moti Ram & CC No. 29 5.6.2014 2014 Garg Others of 2014
12. F.A. No. 986 of Manohar Lal Surinder CC No. 33 5.6.2014 2014 Garg Kumar Goyal of 2014 & Others
13. F.A. No. 987 of Manohar Lal Niraj Gupta & CC No. 30 5.6.2014 2014 Garg Others of 2014 First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 3 which are arising out of the orders dated 16.1.2014 and 5.6.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos. 144 of 2013, 150 of 2013, 146 of 2013, 145 of 2013, 147 of 2013, 148 of 2013, 149 of 2013, 47 of 2014, 28 of 2014, 27 of 2014, 29 of 2014, 33 of 2014 and 30 of 2014 by the District Forum, Mansa vide which Op No. 1 was directed to develop Shakti Nagar as per the specifications and terms and conditions of the PUDA within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. He was further directed to compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- in each complaint. The amount be paid within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.
2. The facts have been taken from First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 arising out of complaint No. 144 of 2013. The complainant had filed a complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(in short 'the Act') on the averments that Op No. 1 had developed a colony under the name and style of Shakti Nagar at College Road, Mansa after obtaining licence No. LDC/2001/73 dated 12.3.2011 from Op No. 2 for development and promotion of the colony under the PUDA rules and regulations. As per the licence issued by OP No. 1, colony in question was to be developed within a period of three years. OP No. 4 had purchased a plot No. 11 for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide sale deed No. 5357 dated 21.12.2001 registered with Sub Registrar, Mansa on 4.1.2002. Op No. 4 was in need of money and on assurance of OP No. 1 to develop the colony within months, complainant purchased plot No. 11 First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 4 for a consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/- from Op No. 4 vide sale deed No. 7223 dated 17.1.2012 registered with Sub Registrar on 18.1.2012. Accordingly, the complainant had come into the footsteps of OP No. 4 and was entitled to the same rights as were available to Op No. 4. OP No. 1 did not develop the colony as per the terms and conditions of the licence to provide facilities as per specifications i.e. water supply, electricity, roads, parks, sewerage and other basic amenities till date, rather he had got extension of the licence till 11.3.2006. The complainant and other plot holders requested Op Nos. 1 & 2 time and again but none of the Op had paid any heed to the request of the plot holders. The complainant had suffered physical and mental harassment, agony and humiliations as well as monetary loss as he failed to construct the house to enjoy the better residential facilities. The act and conduct of the Ops amounted to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint with a direction to Op Nos. 1 to 3 to develop and promote the colony as per specifications, terms and conditions and rules and regulations of the Licencing Authority. They be also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,99,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and cost of litigation.
3. The notice was issued only to OP No. 1 and no notice was issued to Op Nos. 2 to 4 because Op No. 2 & 3 are only the Licencing Authority and not a service provider whereas Op No. 4 had already sold the plot in favour of the complainant. Op No. 1 in its written version took the preliminary objections that Op No. 1 had already executed sale deed No. 5357 dated 21.12.2001 in favour of First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 5 Op No. 4 i.e. contract between the parties, which can be enforced through Civil Court, therefore, this Forum had no jurisdiction to enforce an agreement. The possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant on the basis of "as is where is". OP No. 1 had already deposited a sum of Rs. 24,76,945/- as cost of external development work with PUDA, who is to provide such work. He had already provided internal water lines, internal sewerage lines and boundary wall of 11 feet height from the original earth level. Each plot has been demarcated, green zone was demarcated, trees, plants and grass was planted. Most of the basic facilities required to be provided by this Op has been provided. Since the plot holders had not started the construction at the spot, therefore, extension of the licence was mandatory. Otherwise plots could be resumed by the PUDA. It was specifically mentioned in the Sale Deed that Op will provide basic amenities in the colony with the cooperation of all the plot holders and parties were to be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract and the rules and regulations of the PUDA. The complainant had purchased a plot from OP No. 4 with an intention to further sell it for a premium, therefore, he had violated the conditions of sale deed No. 2999 dated 10.9.2002, therefore, he was not entitled to file any complaint; complaint was barred by limitation; complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is only the PUDA, who was to determine whether Op had violated the terms and conditions of the licence but no notice was given by the District Forum to the PUDA. After basic facilities were provided by this OP then purchasers were to maintain the colony with their own funds and that the Hon'ble First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 6 Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the procedure under the Act is summary procedure whereas it required voluminous evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court. On merits, it was admitted that OP No. 1 had taken licence No. LDC/2001/73 from OP No. 2 and it was renewed till March, 2013. Originally OP No. 4 had purchased plot No. 11 from OP No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 5357 dated 21.12.2001 and the complainant has purchased this plot from Op No. 4. Op No. 4 had violated the terms and conditions of the PUDA by selling the plot in favour of the complainant. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and this Op, therefore, the complaint by the complainant against this Op was not maintainable. Extension of period of the licence given by the PUDA was within the rights of the PUDA. Most of the basic facilities have been provided, therefore, there was no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, renewal certificate Ex. C- 2, sale deed Ex. C-3, sale deed Ex. C-4, letter by DDA Ex. C-5, Rapat of Local Commissioner Ex. C-6. On the other hand, OP No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Manohar Lal Garg Ex. Op-1, sale deed Ex. OP-2, judgment dt. 6.5.2013 Ex. Op-3, sale deed Ex. Op-4, sale deed Ex. Op-5, licence copy Ex. Op-6, letter dt. 19.8.08 First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 7 Ex. Op-7, letter dt. 26.3.09 Ex. Op-8, letter dt. 25.8.08 Ex. Op-9, renewal certificate Ex. Op-10.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by OP No.1, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed as referred above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, appellant/OP No.1 has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It has been argued by the counsel for the OP No. 1 that the complaint is barred by limitation. Op No. 4 Smt. Alka Garg had purchased the plot in the year 2001 and in case the basic amenities as pleaded in the complaint were not provided by Op No. 1 then the complaint should have been filed within a period of two years after execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant, in that way, the complaint should have been filed in the year 2003 but the complaint was filed in the year 2013, therefore, it is clearly barred by limitation. The counsel for the appellant has referred certain judgments i.e. Civil Appeal No. 4962 of 2002 "Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. & Anr." decided on 10.7.2009 and Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002 "State Bani of India versus M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)" decided on 20.3.2009 by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been observed that the complaint is to be filed within two years of the cause of action. There is no dispute with regard to the law point settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment but we have to First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 8 determine as to when the cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant or whether it was a continuous cause of action.
10. Whereas the counsel for complainant has argued that no doubt that Alka Garg was the original owner but after the complainant purchased this plot from Alka Garg, the complainant had come in the footsteps of Alka Garg and he will be entitled to all the rights in the property, which were available to Alka Garg. The counsel for the complainant further stated that Op No. 1 being Developer had taken a licence from Op No. 2 to develop and promote the colony and he was required to provide all the basic amenities as per the terms and conditions of the licence, but he has failed to provide these facilities. In case the facilities are not provided then it will be a continuous cause of action. Even full amenities have not been provided so far as is clear from the written version filed by Op No. 1. In para No. 1 of the preliminary objections, he has stated that most of the basic facilities required to be provided by this Op has been provided by this Op, which shows that all the facilities have not been provided, therefore, it will be a continuous cause of action till all the basic amenities are not provided, therefore, the complaint was not barred by limitation. When this point was dealt with by the District Forum, it was discussed that Op No. 1 has not provided the basic amenities. Originally the licence was valid for a period of three years but lateron, it was extended from time to time and lastly it was extended upto 11.3.2013. Therefore, two years can be counted from that date and in case the limitation is taken from that date, then the compliant is within limitation. A reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Maharashtra First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 9 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai 2015(3) CLT 139 "Samuel Dorman versus M/s Superier Builders & Ors.". In that case, there was delay in delivery of possession. Plea of the Op was that the complaint is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond two years from the date of cause of action. It was observed that the builder has failed to fulfil his obligation to complete the construction of flat. Hence, it can be concluded that there is a continuous cause of action and the complaint is well within limitation. Here also in this case Op No. 1 has failed to fulfil his obligation with regard to provide all the basic amenities and the complaint against the Op is with regard to completion of basic amenities so that he could raise the construction and till these obligations are not completed, it will be a continuous cause of action, therefore, we are of the opinion that the District Forum was correct in its findings that the complaint is within limitation and we affirm the findings so recorded by the District Forum.
11. The next point raised by the counsel for Op No. 1 is that the complainant is not a consumer of the Op. It has been argued by the counsel for the Op No.1 that the plot was sold to respondent No. 4 Alka Garg, therefore, the basic contract was with Alka Garg and there was no contract between the complainant, therefore, there was no relationship of consumer and service provider. No doubt that originally the plot was allotted to Alka Garg but after purchasing this plot from Alka Garg, the complainant has come in the footsteps of Alka Garg. Whether it is Alka Garg or the complainant, the Op was to provide the basic amenities as agreed by him at the time of taking the First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 10 licence from the PUDA and in case he has failed to provide the basic amenities as agreed then certainly, there is deficiency in service on the part of Op. In case the complainant has purchased the plot from Alka Garg then he has purchased all the rights and obligations from Alka Garg, therefore, in case the complainant has come in the footsteps of Alka Garg then we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for Op No. 1 that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. In case there was relationship of consumer and service provider between Alka Garg and Op No. 1, the same relationship will remain as it is between the complainant and Op No. 1, therefore, Op No. 1 cannot raise this plea that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and Op No. 1.
12. It is next argued that PUDA was a necessary party. As final certificate was to be given by the PUDA but no notice was given to the PUDA. At the time he had taken the licence from PUDA to develop and promote the colony, he had taken certain obligations while developing the colony i.e. to provide the basic amenities to the plot holders. The same has been incorporated in the licence Ex. Op-6 and reads as under:-
"i) The design and specifications of the development works to be provided in the colony shall include:-
(a) metalling of roads and paving of footpaths as per Public Works Department specifications;
(b) turling and plantation of trees; and
(c) street lighting.First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 11
ii) The licencee shall enter into an agreement with the competent authority in Form APR IV within a period of thirty days of the grant of the licence;
iii) The promoter shall deposit with the Competent Authority service charges under section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995;
iv) In the layout plan of the colony, the land reserve roads, open spaces, schools, public and community building and other common uses shall not be less than 41.67% percent of the gross area of the land under the colony;
v) The licencee shall not contravene the provisions of any other law for the time being enforce in the area where the colony is being developed;
vi) The promoter shall maintain a separate account in any Schedule Bank of sums taken by him from persons intending to take or who have taken by apartments or plots, as advance, towards the sale price or for any other purpose or deposit and shall disburse the money for meeting the cost development works, and shall on demand, in writing, by the competent authority, make full and true disclosure of all transactions in respect of that account:
vii) The licence is valid for a period of three years commencing from 12.3.2001 and ending with 11.3.2004 and licencee shall complete the development works within the period;First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 12
ix) The promoter shall carry out and complete the development of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976(Central Act 33 of 1976) and other laws for the time being in force.
x) The road formation levels will be got approved from the S.E. Patiala before the execution of the work. The plinth levels of the buildings will be kept 0.45 Mtr. above the road level.
xi) Electrical works will be carried out as per PSEB/PUDA specifications under the supervision of PSEB Authorities.
xii) The promoter shall pay the external development charges liveable U/s 5(5) of the P.A.P.R. Act - 1995. Detailed letter in this regard is being issued separately. This licence will be governed by the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of the Pollution) Act, 1974 & the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 & as amended from time to time & rules made thereunder."
13. Op No. 1 had applied for extension in the licence and Officers of the PUDA had visited the spot on 3.9.2012 and they had made the following observations:-
"1. Water Supply: Pipe is there but OHSR has not been provided. There was open storage tank and it was intimated that efforts are being made to get the water supply connection from M.C. Mansa.
2. Sewerage System:- Sewerage services were provided but there was no vent shaft in sewerage lines. Manholes were not covered and there was no sewerage treatment plant. First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 13
3. Horticulture :- Road plants was there but parks were not maintained.
4. Electricity:- HT lines were against the norms. No plan was approved by PSPCL. LT lines were erected but there was no pole alignment and there was no provision for street light.
Therefore, even in 2012 the basic amenities were not complete as per the inspection conducted by the Officers of the PUDA that may be the reason that the period of licence to OP No. 1 was extended by PUDA the licencing authority, therefore, all the basic amenities were to be provided by Op No. 1. Therefore, complaint is not bad for non- issuance of the notice to the PUDA as PUDA is only the Licencing Authority.
14. Apart from the report of the Officers of the PUDA, during pendency of similar complaint, the District Forum had appointed Smt. Rekha Sharma, Advocate, as a Local Commissioner, who on 29.9.2008 had submitted her report that except one plot there is no other construction in the colony. She further reported that septic tank was un-covered. Sewerage system was not completed. Water supply was incomplete as there was no tank built up for storage of the clean water. No tubewell was installed inside the colony nor any other source of water connected for water supply system. Electric poles for electric supply were not erected. There was no drainage system in the colony. Even otherwise during the course of arguments, it has been argued by the counsel for Op No. 1 that they have taken up the matter with various Departments to provide the basic amenities, therefore, it is for the Department to give the clearance at the earliest First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 14 possible time. Here it is pertinent to note that the plots were demarcated in the year 2001 but it is to be seen whether the efforts were made by Op No. 1 to provide these facilities and when the matter was taken up by Op No. 1 with the various departments. Apart from his own statement Ex. Op-1, he has placed on the record copy of the sale deed Ex. Op-2, order of the District Forum Ex. Op-3, sale deed executed by Alka Garg in favour of Ex. Op-4, licence Ex. Op-6, letter was written to PUDA for extension of the licence Ex. Op-7, Ex. Op-8 is the renewal letter, which was renewed for the period of three years in 2009. Ex. Op-9 is another letter vide which the licence was extended from 13.8.2006 to 12.8.2009 on the original terms and conditions. Ex. Op-10 is original certificate vide which the licence was extended upto 11.3.2013. Therefore, no letter has been placed on the record, which was written by Op No. 1 to other Departments for providing the basic amenities. In the appeal file, he has placed same documents and with regard to NOC of waste water treatment plant, which was written in the year 2013. A letter dated 5.11.2013 was written to the Chief Engineer (Commercial), PSPCL , Punjab, therefore, in case he has taken the matter with the Departments in 2012 and 2013 then certainly, there is deficiency in service on the part of Op No. 1 because he did not take up the matter with various departments, which was required to be done by him for providing the basic amenities immediately after carving out the colony in the year 2001. Therefore, no plea can be raised by the counsel for the appellant that he has raised the matter with the concerned Departments and that the Departments are not prompt in giving the First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 15 response. In case the matter would have been taken immediately after carving out the colony, by this time everything would have been 'OK'. Therefore, the burden cannot be shifted to the Department when OP No. 1 himself was in default for not taking the matter with the concerned Departments at appropriate time.
15. No other point has been argued before us.
16. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
17. The appellant in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
18. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2014
19. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and Op No. 4 had purchased Plot No. 40 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 2999 dated 10.9.2002, which was lateron purchased by the complainant from Op No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 1,72,000/- vide sale deed No. 3936 dated First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 16 6.11.2006. Accordingly, the complainant had come to the footsteps of Op No. 4 and was entitled to same rights as were available to Op No.
4. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
20. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
21. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
22. The appellant in F.A. No. 189 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
23. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2014
24. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and Op No. 4 had purchased Plot No. 44 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 356 dated 2.5.2002, which was lateron purchased by the complainant from Op No. 4 for a First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 17 consideration of Rs. 2,85,000/- vide sale deed No. 1790 dated 8.7.2008. Accordingly, the complainant had come to the footsteps of Op No. 4 and was entitled to same rights as were available to Op No.
4. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
25. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
26. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
27. The appellant in F.A. No. 190 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
28. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2014
29. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and Op No. 4 had purchased Plot No. 41 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 4556 dated 19.11.2001, First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 18 which was lateron purchased by the complainant from Op No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/- vide sale deed No. 858 dated 9.5.2011. Accordingly, the complainant had come to the footsteps of Op No. 4 and was entitled to same rights as were available to Op No.
4. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
30. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
31. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
32. The appellant in F.A. No. 189 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
33. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2014
34. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and the complainant had purchased Plot No. 13 for a sale consideration of First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 19 Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 5358 dated 21.12.2001. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
35. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
36. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
37. The appellant in F.A. No. 192 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
38. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2014
39. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and Op No. 4 had purchased Plot No. 12 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 5356 dated 21.12.2001, which was lateron purchased by the complainant from Op No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/- vide sale deed No. 7222 dated First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 20 17/18.1.2012. Accordingly, the complainant had come to the footsteps of Op No. 4 and was entitled to same rights as were available to Op No. 4. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
40. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
41. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
42. The appellant in F.A. No. 193 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
43. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2014
44. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and Op No. 4 had purchased Plot No. 41 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 5704 dated 14.3.2003, First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 21 which was lateron purchased by the complainant from Op No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/- vide sale deed No. 4612 dated 13.9.2011. Accordingly, the complainant had come to the footsteps of Op No. 4 and was entitled to same rights as were available to Op No.
4. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
45. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
46. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
47. The appellant in F.A. No. 194 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
48. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 982 OF 2014
49. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and the complainant had purchased Plot No. 52 for a sale consideration of First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 22 Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 150 dated 10.4.2003. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
50. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
51. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
52. The appellant in F.A. No. 982 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
53. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 983 OF 2014
54. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and the complainant had purchased Plot No. 47 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 3435 dated 13.8.2001. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications. First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 23
55. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
56. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
57. The appellant in F.A. No. 983 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
58. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2014
59. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and the complainant had purchased Plot No. 19 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 3429 dated 13.8.2001. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
60. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum. First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 24
61. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
62. The appellant in F.A. No. 984 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
63. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2014
64. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and the complainant had purchased Plot No. 28 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 3432 dated 13.8.2001. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
65. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
66. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 25 circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
67. The appellant in F.A. No. 985 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
68. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2014
69. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and the complainant had purchased Plot No. 7 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 3428 dated 13.8.2001. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
70. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
71. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 26
72. The appellant in F.A. No. 986 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
73. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2014
74. Brief facts of the case are that Op No. 1 had developed a colony in the name of "Shakti Nagar" at College Road, Mansa and Op No. 4 had purchased Plot No. 26 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Op No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 3442 dated 13.8.2001, which was lateron purchased by the complainant from Op No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide sale deed No. 2463 dated 1.7.2003. Accordingly, the complainant had come to the footsteps of Op No. 4 and was entitled to same rights as were available to Op No.
4. Op No. 1 failed to provide facilities as per specifications.
75. The reply filed by Op No. 1 is similar as stated in Appeal No. 188 of 2014 and similar order was passed by the District Forum.
76. The points taken in the appeal are similar as taken in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 and with regard to the findings, the findings so recorded in F.A. No. 188 of 2014 be also read in this appeal. In these First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 27 circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
77. The appellant in F.A. No. 987 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
78. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No.1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
79. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 5.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
80. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
81. Copy of the order be placed on other appeals except F.A. No. 188 of 2014.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member November 17, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member First Appeal No. 188 of 2014 28