High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/17474/2015dismissed

The Punjab State Coop House Building Societies v. The Permanent Lok Adalat & ANR

2024-10-24Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj19 pages

#!$ CWP-17474-2015 (O&M) THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

# $ CWP-17475-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

#%$ CWP-17476-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

#$ CWP-17477-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

#)$ CWP-17478-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

#*$ CWP-17479-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

#($ CWP-22125-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

#+$ CWP-22132-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

#,$ CWP-22187-2015 THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES FEDERATION LTD.

THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT & ANOTHER

- ./- 01 0 & 22222

$% &

' !"

( &

' !"

) ***** 1 0 &3 # 45$ CM-17524-CWP-2024 in CWP-17474-2015 +

,, -

./ ,- #

1 MAIN CASES

. # 2

' ./

3 '

- " .

, "

% #& ' ( ! ) * !

+, - and another.

4 #,/ 5

# #

3. 6

" 7

' +

8 $

# #

3.:% #, #

, #,

/, # 6

' # .

, #, 4

;

! )'

, , # 6 '

/<< +,

# , ,

#,,

=2- ./

" #

#, -

" / 12,! #>? @- ./

- 1?A #

B C

' 1A

,, ,

' -

D ?A

## .

" #

#, .

" -

' " #

, / ,

, ,

#B2?,(

, #/ -

" /

, #

# 2=

? "

8 ( !, $ .,

/ "

% '

0 .

, ,, '

-, , #

' "

#, ,

, , ,

, /

,, , " / #

# ,'

/ ,

' - ,,! ,,.( # ,,

# #, '

" - , /

3. .3

/ #

' ,

, ./

< - ,

- .

, .

. #

< -

#, -,,

) B #

, -

. - (

# ,

. #

' "

3 -

. /

, # 7

'#,

' #

' ., F)E6

' ./ 68

#==& .

./7

# ,

' #

) 1=@. #

3. ,

/ '

1 #

= ,

#,,

< -, "

- #,

- ,

>1 #, ) 1@=F=

- ,,

< -

" , 1 !

# ,

/ ., ,

$6%$B% #

8 ', "

! 2B>-

( ./

8 (!, ?

" "

" '

- ,,

8 ( !, ,/ ,, -

# , ./

DBA

#B2?,( #

, -#

#?2> ,(

, "

#/ -

D?A!

,,/

# -

( / # @

- ,

' <

- " ,

" #

!- ./

8 (!,

15. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent also argued that the applicant is challenging the letter Ex. A3 vide which the cost of the flat was fixed at Rs. 23.96 lakh and in addition to that he has demanded interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 8.95 lakh, Rs. 5.00 lakh as compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/* as

> litigation expenses, the total of it comes out to Rs. 29.46 lakh. According to him the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) is to decide the dispute upto the value of Rs. 25 lakh and therefore the dispute cannot be entertained or adjudicated by this Adalat. We do not find any merit in this argument. In fact the applicant has not challenged the initial amount of Rs. 14.92 lakh which he had agreed to pay and Rs. 8.95 lakh has already been paid out of the said amount. He has challenged only the excess amount of Rs. 9,04,036/* now been demanded from him and in addition to that he has asked for Rs. 5.00 lakh as compensation 15% interest on the deposited amount of Rs. 8.95 lakh which comes out to Rs. 6,71,250/* along with Rs. 10,000/* as cost of litigation. The entire claim of applicant comes out to Rs.

20,85,286/ which is below Rs. 25 lakh. We are of the opinion that the amount demanded by the applicant is the property in dispute regarding which the present dispute has arisen. The flat is not in dispute nor the amount of Rs. 14.92 lakh is in dispute. We are therefore of the opinion that the jurisdiction value of the Permanent Lok Adalat is to be determined from the amount of relief claimed by the applicant which is disputed by the respondent comes out to Rs. 20,85,286/. The Permanent Lok Adalat therefore has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the parties.

16. Otherwise also the Central Government vide notification No. 803*E dated 20.03.2015 has increased the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) to pass an award in a dispute from Rs. 25 lakh to Rs. One Crore. This Adalat therefore has the pecuniary jurisdiction to pass an award regarding the dispute because the value of the property is below Rs. One Crore.

B 17.

The contention of Ld. Counsel for the applicants is that as per letter Ex. A4 dated 28.07.2009 the respondent had intimated to deliver the possessions during the last quarter of the year 2011. According to him it is otherwise also in consonance with the established principle that where date of delivery of possession has not been given by the builder in the allotment letter (as is the fact in this case because the allotment letter Ex. A2 does not mention within what period the possession would be given to the allottees), the reasonable period of construction would be taken as two years. It is an admitted case that the construction was not completed within the aforesaid period of 2 years or upto 31.12.2011. The respondent has give some reasons in para No. 5 of their written statement and the Ld. Counsel for the applicants has argued that none of those reasons is proved on record nor do they justify the delay in completing construction of the flat within the agreed period of 2 years.

18.

The first ground taken by the respondent is that the site located on Zirakpur Patiala Highway was a low lying area by 8/9 feet below the National Highway Road level, the completion of project was delayed due to the site being flooded a number of times as the rain water had to be drained out. Besides the bald statement of Sewa Singh, Superintending Engineer in his affidavit Ex. R1, there is no evidence to prove the same. Otherwise also if it was a low lying area it would have been apparent to the respondent and being in the construction field they would have very well anticipated that in rainy season the area was going to be flooded, they should have therefore taken measures in advance to protect the area from being flooded. In our opinion this allegation that the area was

2 flooded or there was any hindrance in raising construction though not proved yet is not a justification to excuse the delay in completing construction within the prescribed period.

19. The next ground taken in para No. 5 of the reply is the scarcity of the building material due to ban on mining due to which the sand, gravel and bricks were alleged to be not available. Again no evidence has been produced by the respondent to prove if there was any ban on mining in Punjab. The respondent has produced a newspaper report Ex. R*2 in which the Congress political party leveled allegations that the rates of sand and gravel have increased a lot in the SAD Regime and there was shortage of it but it was immediately refuted by the Minister of the Revenue Department. This report cannot be taken to be evidence either to prove the ban on mining or to prove any shortage of building material.

No specific evidence has been led by the respondent as to on which date what was the requirement of the respondent and what was the supply they received, to show that they did not get enough material for the construction of the flats. Otherwise also the shortage of building material could not be a ground to delay construction because the respondent could store the building material in advance in view of the fact that they had no undertake the construction of the project. In any case the building material was available, it was used by the respondent and therefore it cannot be said to be a sufficient ground to delay construction.

20. The next argument of the respondent is that electric layout was submitted to the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (in short PSPCL) on 15.7.2009 and they delayed the issuance of NOC. It is also contended that the

PSPCL asked them to construct 66 KV Sub Station which was opposed by the respondent, petitions had to be filed and ultimately they succeeded in opposing the construction of 66KV Sub Station and in its place a 11 KV supply line, as desired by the respondent, was constructed. When we go through the record, we find that there is no such letter issued by the respondent to the PSPCL in 2009 for obtaining the NOC. The respondent very well knew that electricity supply would be needed in these flats they should have therefore taken up the matter in 2009 to get the formalities completed for the electricity connection which is not proved to have been done by them in the present case.

It is also the contention of the respondent that they were asked to construct 66 KV Sub Station at the site but there is no letter by the PSPCL produced on record to prove the same. Their further contention is that they filed a petition challenging the said decision of the PSPCL before the Punjab State Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) but neither the copy of the said petition nor the order dated 24.10.2013 passed therein by the Commission has been placed on record. It is next the contention of the respondent that as per order dated 24.10.2013 the Commission had directed that instead of 66 KV Sub Station the 11KV supply line be installed to provide electricity to these flats and when this order was not complied with by the PSCPL, they filed a petition before the said Commission to enforce the said order. Ex.

R*2 is the copy of the order vide which the petition was filed in 2014 (it was admitted on 26.2.2014) and was decided on 29.4.2014. In our opinion this is the only serious effort made by the respondent in getting the electricity supply to these flats.

matter settled before 2011 were necessary to have been taken in advance but were not taken by the respondent which is grave negligence on their part. It is argued by the respondent that it was due to this reason of non supply of electricity that the possession has been delayed. However, we are of the opinion that the possession has been delayed not only due to this reason but also due to the fact that there was delay in raising construction of the flats. The respondents have not been able to produce on record as to when the construction was completed by them. In any case there is no dispute about it that they did not complete the construction by the end of last quarter of 2011 as promised by them and there was therefore deficiency in service on their part in this regard.

21. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has also argued that the tentative cost of the flat was initially fixed at Rs. 14.92 lakh and the applicant has already deposited Rs. 8.95 lakh but now the value of the flat has been increased by Rs. 9,04,036/*. The applicant has challenged the increase in the price of the flat. When we go through the allotment letter Ex. A*2, we find terms and condition No. 8 through which the applicant was informed that the exact/final cost of the flat shall be worked out after the completion of the flat but before handing over the possession of the flat. The respondent therefore issued the letter Ex. A3 on 22.10.2014 intimating to the applicant the final cost of the flat as Rs. 23.96 lakh and asked him to deposit the remaining amount. Since initially the tentative price of the flat was intimated and the respondent has the right to fix the final cost of the flat, the issuance of letter Ex. A3 demanding the enhanced amount cannot be said to a deficiency in service on their part. The respondent is well within its right to recover this

amount from the applicant as the price of the flat. The contention of the applicant challenging the increase in price cannot be accepted.

22. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that as per para No. 4 of the allotment letter Ex. A2, 40% of the cost of the flat i.e. Rs. 5.97 lakh is payable in 120 equated monthly installments spread over a period of 10 years with interest @ 15% p.a. This amount could also be deposited by the allottee without interest within 30 days from the date of offer of possession. His contention is that while issuing the letter Ex. АЗ the respondent has done away with this right of the applicant to deposit Rs. 5.97 lakh in monthly installments in a period of 10 years with interest @ 15% p.a. which cannot be done away without the consent of the applicant. The applicant had accepted terms and conditions conveyed to him through letter Ex. A2 which had become a binding contract between the parties.

The respondent therefore could not do away with these conditions of the contract. In this manner the applicant would have the right to deposit Rs. 5.97 lakh in 120 equated monthly installments spread over a period of 10 years with interest 15% p.a. or a lesser rate of interest as determined by the respondent or pay the amount within 30 days without interest.

23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the possession of the flat which was to be given to the applicants in the last quarter of December 2011 was not given and the delay in delivery of possession starts w.e.f. 01.01.2012. As mentioned above, the first effective step for delivery of possession was taken by the respondent on 26.2.2014 when they filed a petition before the Commission with respect to the laying of 11

KV transmission line to these premises.

a) The respondent is therefore, liable to pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs. 8.95 lakh for the period from 1.1.2012 to 25.2.2014. The rate of interest would be @ 8% p.a. and the amount on this score comes out to Rs. 1,53,875/*.

b) The applicant would be permitted to pay Rs. 5.97 lakh in 120 equated monthly installments spread over a period of 10 years with interest 15% p.a. (or at the reduced rate of interest as decided by the respondent) and shall have the discretion to pay this amount in lump sum without interest within 30 days from the date of offer of the possession of flat. c) The respondent would issue a fresh letter to the applicants in this respect in place of Ex. A3 dated 22.10.2014 modifying the terms and conditions of the letter of possession in accordance with the order mentioned above.

d) The applicant would also be entitled to Rs. 10,000/* as litigation fee.

e) The amount of interest and cost shall either be paid to the applicant in cash within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order or shall be adjusted towards the cost of the flat regarding which a fresh letter in lieu of Ex. A3 dated 22.10.2014 shall be issued within the aforesaid period of 30 days failing which the respondent would be liable to pay interest on this amount @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. today till the allotment letter is issued or the amount is paid to the applicant.

> !'' "

# ,

1 B 8 6

,# #

!- ./

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

% '

" ,

## #

# #

# ,,

#, -

. , " 7

(!, # ,,

' # , " / #

# -

- #

,, ?1 7 , .

' "

,,/

# "

3. -

;

8 68 # , # ,

/ ,/7

! 6

$6% #

' ##

" ##

, # ,

/ ,/ #

, 7 .

3. .

3 , " /

" .

# 7

- "

" .

,, '

#- #

DBA

- #

,,?1 2 8 6

8 ( !, $ .,

/ "

% (

? B>2 -

/ ,

#, -, ( ,/

, C #

/ 7 .

8 ( !,

, #

' "

' " #

- # 7 #

- bona fide

. '

(

' 0

# , " / #

. # ,

# , " / #

< , .

. - #

" #

# # .

- .

, ,

' "

' .

# -

' ./

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

# , " / #

,# .

, C #

/ -

# - 5 #,,

, "

# ,/

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

# , " / #

. , , -

/. .

. # (

B>2

= < " , 6

,# #

" '

" ,.,

,, '

./ -/ #

,/ ## #

- #

- '

@, . #

8 ( !, $ .,

/ "

. '

, " / #

',/

., ./

8 ( !, $ .,

/ "

% # ,

(

bona fide

3. -

68 ,

, #

/ ,/

' # / ,

. /

, #

" , / .

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

%",

,/ ./

, < #

# ,

!- ./

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

# ,,

- ./7

, "

./, C #

- ,/

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

- '

,,/

-, .

- , ''

' .,

- -

, -

# .,

' == & .

./68-,

< - # ,,/ ./

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

- C

. , " ./ -

. #

3. ,

/ '

-# ,

# 0 /

./-

. , " < -,

, # ,

# " .,

#, -

- /# , " / #

, # ,

./ 68! . C

0 #

# ,

, /

1 )

. ," inter se .

- ,, .

, < ,, ',.

- ( ./

/,/-

(

, #

/ ., '

/ ,/

ipso facto . ", '

# ,/

' # # ., '

3. ? "

- # (

' 0

# , " / #

# ,,

. 0

# Force Majeure.

. - #

/ ,/ ./ /

# #

., '

@ , # "

/ ##

, force majeure

# , " / #

,/.

, "

# .

# ,

( , #

/ ,/ #

# .

, ##

. ##

,,/

" / -

" .

,, #

# @,,

, / .

" ) "

# / .

, ./

/ '

, # ,

, .,

@'' "

,/ ,"

, #

/ ,/

= +

8 ', "

! 2B> "

8 (!, -

, 3

$;% #

8 ', "

! 2B>

, #)

/ C

, # H

, E @!- ./

8 (!, ## # ,, ',

2 "

/ '

7 '

- #

3 , "

# -

!- >

- ./

8 (!, .

./-

/ ,

#, - C

. , "

. .

- ./

8 ( !,

- #

,, ?1 $-

, / ,

. , " % .

. ,, ', .

/ ##

B +

# '

!- 1>?

) @>1 ./

8 (!, $ .,

/ "

% ' , #1 0 &$ 3 "

Vishal Sharma

(

I @)

., I @)