The case of Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda Through Its Executive Officer, Bathinda v/s Sarabjeet Kaur revolves around a complainant's quest for justice against an Improvement Trust for failing to deliver possession of a purchased flat within the agreed timeframe.
Factual Background:
In 2010, the Improvement Trust launched a housing scheme in Bathinda, inviting applications for multi-story apartments and penthouses. The Complainant applied, paid the necessary fees, and was allotted a flat in December 2010 for a total price of Rs. 27 lakhs, a sum fully paid by April 2016.
As per the agreement, the Improvement Trust was to complete construction and hand over possession by October 27, 2013. However, the Complainant alleged that the Trust failed to meet this obligation and also did not complete the promised development of essential amenities. In 2016, the Trust demanded an additional payment of Rs. 6,20,000, which the Complainant viewed as an unfair practice. Further complicating matters, the Complainant discovered through an RTI response that the Improvement Trust had acknowledged deficiencies in construction quality. Consequently, the Complainant filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, seeking a refund, interest, and compensation for the Trust's deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
State Commission’s Order:
The State Commission's order dated June 1, 2018, directed the Appellant/Improvement Trust to obtain a completion certificate. The Commission noted the delay in handing over possession, despite the complainant having made full payment. The State Commission directed the Improvement Trust to obtain the completion certificate within three months, and after obtaining the certificate, intimate the complainant to deposit the balance amount and take possession of the flat. The State Commission also ordered the Improvement Trust to pay interest on the deposited amount to the complainant at 8% per annum from 27.10.2013 till the date of delivery of possession, compensation for mental agony and harassment for not delivering the possession within the specified time, and litigation expenses. In case the completion certificate was not obtained and possession was not delivered, then Ops will refund the entire amount deposited with it along with interest at 12% per annum from various dates of deposit till payment.
Grounds of Appeal:
Aggrieved by this order, the Improvement Trust filed an appeal primarily arguing that the State Commission erred in directing the Trust to obtain a Completion Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda. The Trust contended that as an independent statutory body established under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, it was not obligated to obtain such a certificate from the Municipal Corporation. The Trust asserted its autonomy in developing projects and argued that the Municipal Corporation had no jurisdiction over its projects. The Trust also objected to the imposition of interest, arguing that it should only accrue until the date possession was first offered.
Commission's Observations and Decision:
The Commission acknowledged the Appellant’s contention regarding the Completion Certificate. However, it also noted that the State Commission appeared to have taken into account the complainant's primary request for a refund. The Commission highlighted that the State Commission's order had an alternative direction for a refund with 12% interest per annum, in the event the Completion Certificate was not obtained. The current case had similar circumstances to 18 other appeals, in which the complaints were allowed with a direction on the Appellant/Town Improvement Trust to refund the consideration prices paid by the various Complainants along with interest. Ultimately, the Commission partly allowed the appeal, modifying the State Commission's order. The Appellant was directed to refund the amount paid by the Respondent with 9% interest per annum, within three months, and any unpaid amounts would attract 12% interest per annum until final realization. The directions of the State Commission regarding compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses were to remain unchanged.
