BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 613 of 2014

Date of Institution: 19-11-2014

Date of Decision: 15-03-2016  

Jaswinder Singh, A-480, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. The Chairman, The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.
3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Jatinder Pal Singh, Attorney.

              For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Sh.Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate

              For Opposite Party No. 3: Sh.U.K.Gaind, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Jaswinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that in the year 2008 the complainant purchased  SCF No.46 (Shop cum Flat) measuring 82.63 square yards at City Centre Area Development Scheme, Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar from Smt.Harjit Kaur who earlier purchased the same from Gajinder Singh, who was the original allottee of this SCF in the year 1980 from Amritsar Improvement Trust. Said Shop cum Flat (herein-after referred to as ‘SCF’) was transferred in the name of complainant in the year 2009. Complainant alleges that Amritsar Improvement Trust has sold 14 SCFs bearing serial No. SCF 38 to SCF 51 at City Centre Area Development Scheme, Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar in the year 1980. These SCFs are with two sides open. Front side of these SCFs is lying on the Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar and on the backside of these SCFs, 20 feet road was prescribed and after this 20 feet road, about 1000 square yards were kept vacant as an open land for the public place to be used by the residents of these SCFs. Backside of these SCFs was to be used to approach the first floor and other floors of these SCFs meant for the use of families of the persons. However, more than 30 years have  passed, but backside road to these SCFs have not been constructed by these authorities. The vacant space of about 1000 square yards on the backside of these SCFs, which is adjoining to the 20 feet road and which was to be used by them as a public place, have also been converted by the Amritsar Improvement Trust in a huge waste dump which is proving a hell for them due to its filthy conditions. Also, the intersecting road, measuring about 100 feet in length and 60 feet in width, from where  they approach backside of these SCFs, have also not been constructed since years. This intersecting road comprises of pot holes, huge dust, unbalanced path, mud, huge ups and downs and it is near to impossible and highly difficult for them to approach their backside of the SCFs safely and comfortably.  On the front side of SCF of the complainant, the Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar leads to Golden Temple through Ghee Mandi Chowk. This Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar has been damaged and broken for the  last more than 10 years and is in horrible condition having huge potholes, pits and creating heavy dust always and this road has become parking places for the trucks and other vehicles and these trucks have blocked the entry and the road. Due to, there not being a road, a number of buses, trucks and other vehicle always remain standing in front of SCF of the complainant. Due to its severe broken conditions, no one can approach the complainant from this road due to which the complainant is not in a position to work and the complainant is unable to do business on his SCF and not in a position to commercially exploit this place for which he is suffering huge financial loss. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay minimum damages of Rs.15 lacs which the complainant has actually suffered due to them; to construct the backside road, intersecting road and Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar and also remove the unauthorized parking of the trucks, buses, etc. in front of the shop of the complainant.  
2. On notice, Opposite Parties  No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as it is time barred and the complainant is using the property SCF for commercial purposes and as per the Act, the present complainant is not the consumer of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, Opposite Party No.1 has handed over the scheme to Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vide their letter AIT 3339 dated 30.6.2011 and after 30.6.2011 it is the duty of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar to maintain and do development of all kinds of new and maintenance works in this scheme.
3. Opposite Party No. 3  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that no relief can be granted to the complainant as  only remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit as there are complicated and disputed questions involved in the present case and the matter requires evidence which is not possible in the present complaint. The relief claimed in the present complaint is in the nature of Writ which can not be granted by this Forum. The scheme has been framed by Opposite Party No.1 and all the developments, etc, in this scheme are to be done by Opposite Party No.1 after receiving the funds from the local government and thereafter the scheme is transferred to the answering Opposite Party No. 3 as such Opposite Party No.1 is solely responsible for the development to be made in the area. As per the information, after receiving funds from the government, Opposite Party No. 3 has started remaining development in the area and pucca road has been prepared at the spot. Any violation or shortcoming in the scheme is to be removed by Opposite Party No.1 after receiving funds from government. The answering Opposite Party  is only responsible when any funds are provided to the answering Opposite Party by the government or by Opposite Party No.1 for developments to be made in the scheme  which scheme is taken over by the answering Opposite Party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C26 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Rishi, Chairman Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
6. Opposite Party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amandeep Singh SDO Ex.OP3/1  and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the  complainant and  ld.counsel for the Opposite both the parties with the valuable assistance of ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that a Shop cum Flat bearing No.46, measuring 82.63 square yards at City Centre Area Development Scheme, Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar was sold by Opposite Party No.1 in open public auction to one Harjit Kaur who earlier  purchased the same from Gajinder Singh in the year 1980 and the complainant purchased this SCF No.46 from said Gajinder Singh in the year 2008 and was transferred in his name by Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2009. Complainant submitted that  Front side of these SCFs are lying on the Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar and on the backside of these SCFs, 20 feet road was prescribed and after this 20 feet road, about 1000 square yards were kept vacant as an open land for the public place and usages to be used by the residents of these SCFs. Complainant submitted that  more than 30 years have been passed, but backside road to these SCFs has not been constructed by these authorities and the vacant space left as public place on the backside of these SCFs, have  been converted into  huge waste dump by Amritsar Improvement Trust.  Even  the intersecting road, where the residents of these SCFs have to approach backside of   these SCFs, has also not been constructed by the Opposite Parties, rather this  intersecting road comprises of potholes, huge dust, unbalanced path, mud, huge ups and downs and it is near to impossible and highly difficult for them to approach the backside of their SCFs safely and comfortably. Even on the front side of these SCFs, the Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar leads to Golden Temple has been damaged and broken for the  last so many years, but has not been repaired by the Opposite Parties, rather this road has become parking place for the trucks and other vehicles  and these trucks have blocked the entry and the road. Due to there, not being a road, a number of buses, trucks and other vehicle always remain standing in front of SCF of the complainant. Due to its severe broken conditions, no one can approach the complainant from this road due to which the complainant is not in a position to work.  And due to this reason, the complainant is unable to do business on his SCF and not in a position to commercially exploit this place for which he is suffering huge financial loss, whereas the government has been taking huge amount from the residents of these SCFs in the form of taxes, etc i.e. property tax, etc. Opposite Parties are putting responsibility on each other, but neither repairing/ constructing  the aforesaid roads nor providing the basic amenities to the SCF of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is that the complainant purchased the property in question from the original owner Gajinder Singh for commercial purpose, as such does not fall under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Further the complainant has purchased the property from the original owner on ‘as is where is’ basis. He can not claim amenities and that too after about 35 years of the sale of the aforesaid plot to the allottee by Opposite Party No.1 from open public auction as the SCF in question was allotted to Gajinder Singh in open auction in the year 1980. Further, Opposite Party No.1 has handed over the scheme to Municipal Corporation, Amritsar  i.e.  Opposite Party No.3 vide their letter AIT 3339 dated 30.6.2011 and as such, 1 is not liable/ responsible for any repair/ construction of the roads and other amenities at the site in question. After 30.6.2011 it is the duty of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar to maintain and do development of all kinds of new and maintenance works in this scheme.
10. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.3 is that the only remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit as the complainant is not claiming amenities, but repair/ construction of roads and removal of garbage, if any, and stoppage of the parking of the vehicle at the site in question. These acts of repair, etlc. do not come under the purview of Consumer Fora. The complaint is vague and frivolous. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 submitted that Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar  has already been repaired and there is no parking  of trucks and other vehicles, etc. It is the duty of the traffic authority to remove these hurdles, if any, i.e. parking of the vehicles on the road. Opposite Party No.3 submitted that the scheme in question was framed by Opposite Party No.1 and all the developments etc, in this scheme were  done by Opposite Party No.1 and thereafter the scheme is transferred to Opposite Party No. 3. However, after receiving funds from the government, Opposite Party No.3 has started  remaining development in the area and  Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar  has been repaired/ constructed. All the amenities have already been provided to the residents of SCFs long back in the year 1980, when these SCFs were allotted to the original allottees in open auction and the auction purchasers i.e. original allottees purchased SCFs on ‘as is where is’ basis. Now the complainant wants repair/ construction work and further development in the area which does not come under the purview of Consumer Fora. Further, the SCF in question was allotted to the allottee in open public auction in the year 1980. Now the complainant can not claim amenities after a lapse of about 35 years, when the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 1980 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 19.11.2014 which is hopelessly barred by limitation. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  SCFs in City Centre Area Development Scheme, Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar  were allotted to the allottees in open public auction in the year 1980 and the SCF in question was originally allotted to one Gajinder Singh. Later on this SCF was purchased by one Harjit Kaur and from whom it was purchased by the complainant in the year 2008 and he got transferred this SCF in his name in the records of Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar  in the year 2009 on payment of requisite fee and got the sale deed  registered in his name. The SCF in question was allotted to the allottee in open public auction in the year 1980 and the allottee purchased this SCF in open public auction by considering all the facts  i.e. surrounding circumstances, development work in the area and basic amenities available to that  scheme at that time i.e. in the year 1980. Had Opposite Party No.1 at the time of allotment did not provide the basic amenities to the allottees of these SCFs, the allottees could take steps for getting basic amenities at that time or within 2 years from the date of allotment or when they had taken the possession of the SCFs from Opposite Party No.1. The cause of action accrued to the allottee in the year 1980 and the time limit for filing the complaint before Consumer Forum is 2 years, but the complainant, for the first time has filed the present complaint on 19.11.2014 i.e. after a lapse of period of about 34 years. Even the complainant has purchased this SCF from the original allottee Gajinder  Singh via one Harjit Kaur  in the year 2008 and got the same transferred in his name from Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar in the year 2009. Even then the complainant did not file any complaint before the Consumer Forum, within 2 years from 2008 or 2009. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred.
12. Now at this stage, the complainant can not claim amenities because the basic amenities were provided by Opposite Party No.1 to the allottees at the time of allotment of these SCFs, in open public auction in the year 1980 and the allottees did not file any complaint within time limit of 2 years from the date of allotment of SCFs or from the date when the possession of the SCFs was taken by the allottees. So, it appears that the complainant through this complaint is demanding repair/ re-construction of the roads/ lanes, if any, which have been broken due to passage of time; and the removal of garbage as well as stopping owners from parking the vehicles in front of SCF of the complainant in this City Centre Area Development Scheme,  Akali Phoola Singh Burj Road, Amritsar. These repairs/ renovation and removal of parking of vehicles and garbage do not come within the purview of Consumer Fora. Rather it is the duty of the administrative authority i.e. Traffic Police or Sanitation Department or the Municipal Corporation  in the discharge of its general duties, which does not come within the purview  of the Consumer Fora. The complainant can approach the administrative authority in this regard or knock the door of Civil Court under the Specific Relief Act, for removal of nuisance, etc.
13. Apart from this, Opposite Party No.1 has developed this scheme in the year 1980 and thereafter transferred this scheme to Opposite Party No.3 vide letter  No.AIT 3339 dated 30.6.2011 and this fact has been admitted by Opposite Party No.3. So, the repair or development work in the area, if any, is to be got  done by Opposite Party No.3, therefore, Opposite Party No.1 is not at all liable to perform any such repair work in this scheme w.e.f. 30.6.2011 and as such, this complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is not maintainable. For any development work or repair of the roads, removal of garbage or stoppage of parking of the vehicles on the road in front of the SCF of the complainant, this Forum can not pass any such order. The complainant may approach the concerned authority of Opposite Party No.3 for any development work. Further the cause of action accrued to the allottee of this SCF for filing the complaint in the year  1980 for getting the basic amenities, if any, not provided by the developer of this scheme, said allottee can file complaint in this Forum within 2 years from the date of allotment of SCF or at the most from the date the original allottee had taken possession of SCF in question, but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant in the year 2014 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than 34 years which is hopelessly barred by limitation.
14. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant may approach the appropriate authority/ court for his grievance, if any. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 15.03.2016.                                                     (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                 President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member