Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Complaint No.420-15
Date of institution : 1.7.2015
Date of decision : 22.7.2015
Parshotam Narain
Brig.Shyam Sunder Tejpal
Ram Murti
Prem Nath
Gopi Nath all sons of Shri Dalip Rai, all residents of E-24, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110014.
..............Complainants
Versus
Amritsar Improvement Trust having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Chairman/Administrator.
...............Opposite party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
Present : For the complainant : Sh.M.P.Singh Walia, Advocate
QUORUM : Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President, Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member and Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Order Dictated by :
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Complainants being sons of Sh.Dalip Rai filed the present complaint on the ground that Sh.Dalip Rai and Smt.Jaswanti Devi, father and mother of the complainants were co-owners of the land measuring 32 kanals and 7 marlas situated at Village Sultanwind, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The said land was acquired by the opposite party vide notification
-2-
dated 17.1.1996 for carving out a colony which was known as 340 Acre Area Development Scheme. Complainants alleges that as per policy of the opposite party, a plot of 200 sq.yards was to be given to the displaced person. As the land of Sh.Dalip Rai and Smt.Jaswanti Devi was acquired by the opposite party, therefore, both of them were entitled to plot of 200 sq.yards in the said scheme. Consequently, Sh.Dalip Rai and Smt.Jaswanti Devi applied for allotment of plot of 200 sq.yards each on 4.9.1998. They also filled in printed proforma known as Form 'A' and submitted the same with the opposite party on payment of Rs.100/-. Said Dalip Rai and Jaswani Devi wrote so many letters dated 30.7.2002, 30.10.2002, 9.3.2003, 24.7.2003, 3.3.2005 and June 2006 requesting the opposite party for the allotment of plot but no reply was received from the opposite party. Complainant also deposited Rs.500/- vide demand draft dated 23.9.2009 with the opposite party. Smt.Jaswanti Devi and Sh.Dalip Rai had expired on 13.2.2005 and 8.10.2010 respectively leaving behind their only class I legal heirs. Opposite party wrote a letter dated 23.12.2013 telling the complainants that a resolution No.114 dated 3.12.2013 has been passed and two plots bearing No. B-470 and B-471 in 340 Acre Scheme have been approved and matter has been sent to the Government for its approval so that same could be allotted to the complainants. Even then, the opposite party is not allotting the plots to the complainants. Complainants through this complaint have prayed that opposite party may be directed to allot plots in the aforesaid 340 Acre Development Scheme to the complainants alongwith compensation and costs of litigation etc.
We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have minutely gone through the record.
Counsel for the complainants relied upon the law laid down by
-3-
the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Delhi Development Authority Versus Anita Baraya 2004(3) CLT page 560 wherein it has been held that a person who applies for allotment of flat is a consumer. He has also relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in case Chief Administratror, PUDA and another Versus Gurbachan Kaur 2004 (2) CLT Page 8 in which it has been held that a person who has applied for allotment of a house is covered by definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. He has also relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Karnail Kaur Versus Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and anothers 2005 (1) CLT 571. We have gone through the aforesaid rulings. It has been held that a person who had applied for allotment of house is covered by the definition of 'consumer'. Whereas Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its latest ruling in Revision Petition No.3649 of 2014 decided on 29.1.2015 titled as Delhi Development Authority through its Director Versus Shri Parveen Kumar and anothers has categorically held that till the allotment of the flat, the respondent had not become the consumer. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in so many cases i.e.Delhi Development Authority Versus Krishan Lal, First appeal No.486 of 2006 decided on 27.9.2011. The Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid ruling has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Dass 1994 (4) SCC 225 that it is after allotment, rights may arise as per the contract, but certainly not before allotment and at that stage, he is only a prospective investor as there is no purchase of goods for a
-4-
consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. So, it is clear that no prospective investor could fall under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & others 2013 (6) Scale 571.
So, from the entire above discussion, it is clear that complainant is at the most a prospective investor and not allottee of the plot unless and until there is allotment of plot. Complainant did not become a consumer as per definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. So, the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, it is ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant. Copy of the order be furnished to the complainant free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
22.7.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh ) President
( Anoop Sharma ) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa )
Member Member
