­BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Execution No. 47 of 2014

Date of Institution: 14.5.2014

Date of Decision : 09.12.2015

Kanwar Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Ghansham Singh R/o Kanwar Public School, Katra Moti Ram, I/s Hathi Gate, Amritsar.

...Applicant/Complainant

Vs.

Amritsar Improvement Trust having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its  Chairman.

....Respondent/Opposite Party

Application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the applicant      : Kanwar Pahul Singh,Advocate

    For the respondent    : Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate

Quorum :   Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1. Applicant filed the present application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for implementation of the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by this Forum vide which the opposite party was directed to provide basic amenities i.e. water supply, motorable road and sewerage in the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, within six months from the date of orders. The complainant was also granted Rs. 10000/- as compensation. The applicant/ complainant submitted that earlier applicant/ complainant  filed an execution application bearing No. 129 of 2011 which was decided by this Forum vide order dated 29.8.2012. The said application was allowed and the respondent was ordered to pay fine. The complainant/applicant filed another execution application dated  8.1.2013 bearing No. 6 of 2013, which was decided by this Forum on 2.1.2014 in which Sh. Satinderjit Singh, XEN got recorded his statement that the opposite party shall provide basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant/applicant is situated by 30.4.2014. So in that execution application, this Forum held that the opposite party still has not provided the basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. Resultantly Sh. Sandeep Rishi, PCS ,Chairman of the Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar was held guility and he was ordered  to pay fine of Rs. 10000/- u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act vide order dated 2.1.2014. The opposite party has not yet provided the basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated and the applicant has filed the present execution application bearing No. 47 of 2014 dated 14.5.2014. Ld.counsel for the applicant/ complainant submitted that all this shows that the opposite party did not bother for the orders of this Forum. The applicant, therefore, submitted that proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act be initiated against the Chairman of the opposite party Sh. Sandeep Rishi, PCS. The complainant shall also be paid compensation of Rs. 10000/- and cost of litigation.
2. Whereas the case of the opposite party/respondent as per affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Rishi, PCS, Chairman,  Amritsar Improvement Trust,Amritsar is that the opposite party has already fulfilled and provided  the basic amenities i.e. water supply, motorable road and sewerage system in the said scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated and now the complainant is free to get sanctioned his site plan, if any, from the opposite party and raise construction over his plot . All the basic amenities which were in the hands of the opposite party, have already been provided in the said scheme, as such this execution application has become infructuous . The respondent/Improvement Trust has further submitted that the opposite party/respondent has already sanctioned Rs. 2664.81 lacs and distributed the said amount to the concerned departments for providing amenities in the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated namely Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar , Mall Mandi Scheme, Amritsar. The plot of the complainant is situated in the said scheme. All the basic amenities have already been provided in the said scheme as  are visible in the photographs which have been produced by the opposite party which are Ex.R-1 to  Ex.R-8, the detail of the scheme work is Ex.R-9. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party has complied with the order of this Forum dated 7.3.2011. Ld.counsel for the opposite party further submitted that opposite party has spent huge amount i.e.  Rs.2664.81 lacs as per detail Ex.R-9 on the development of the said scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. All the basic amenities have already been provided to the plot of the complainant as well as in the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. The complainant has not filed any application for getting the site plan of the plot in question sanctioned from the opposite party in order to raise construction over his plot. In order to avoid non construction charges, instead of raising construction over the plot in question, the complainant/applicant has been filing execution applications one after the other and has been getting compensation which fact has been concealed by the complainant/applicant . At the time of deciding of his earlier execution application vide order dated 29.8.2012, this Forum imposed penalty of Rs. 7000/- u/s 27 of the  Consumer Protection Act upon the respondent, out of which Rs. 5000/- were paid to the complainant/applicant. The complainant has concealed this fact in the present execution application that he has received Rs. 5000/- as per order dated 29.8.2012. Not only this while deciding another execution application  vide order dated 2.1.2014 , this Forum held Sh.Sandeep Rishi, PCS, Chairman of the Opposite Party, who was present in the Forum, guility and imposed a fine of Rs. 10000/- u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and out of that amount, the complainant was paid Rs. 7500/- vide that order of this Forum. The complainant has also concealed this fact that he has received Rs. 7500/- as per order dated 2.1.2014 of this Forum. Ld.counsel for the opposite party further submitted that opposite party has now already complied with the order of this Forum dated 7.3.2011 and has filed affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Rishi, PCS, Chairman of the opposite party and has also filed the details of the investment Ex.R-9 i.e. an amount of Rs. 2664.81 lacs has been spent  to provide the basic amenities in the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated and has also filed photographs Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 fully proving that the basic amenities i.e. water supply, motorable road, sewerage as well as electricity have been provided in that scheme by the opposite party. The opposite party has also moved an application for appointment of Local Commissioner to verify these facts and report. But the complainant opposed that application tooth and nail mischievously , so that the true facts should not come on record. This Forum did not allow that application as the complainant has opposed that application for appointment of Local Commissioner. Had the intention of the complainant/applicant been bonafide, he should  not have opposed that application for appointment of Local  Commissioner, rather should support that application. All this shows that the present execution application has been filed by the applicant/complainant just to avoid construction over his plot and to avoid penalty for non construction of the plot in question and to extract money in the shape of compensation time and again, from the opposite party/respondent. The intention of the complainant is malafide, as such the application is liable to be dismissed.
3. The applicant/ complainant has tendered his statement Ex.A1 by way of affidavit in reply to the affidavit of respondent/ Opposite Party dated 17.11.2014 alongwith photographs Ex.A2 to Ex.A5. On the other hand, the respondent/ Opposite Party has tendered affidavit of Sh.Kewal krishan, Junior Engineer, AIT Ex.RW1/1 regarding the photographs Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 which were clipped to prove the status of development of Mall Mandi Scheme. Opposite Party has also tendered affidavit of Sh.Mohan Lal Lochan, Junior Engineer, Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar Ex.RW2/A alongwith photographs Ex.OP9 to Ex.OP18  proved by Sh.Mohan Lal Lochan, Junior Engineer of the Opposite Party.   
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record.
5. From the entire above discussion as well as affidavits filed by both the parties, it stands fully proved on record that plot No. 13-B  in Mall Mandi Scheme,  Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Amritsar was allotted to Ghansham Dass on 10.6.2005 which was lateron transferred in the name of applicant/ complainant on 22.8.2006. The complainant filed  the complaint against Opposite Party i.e. complaint case No. 596 of 2009 which was decided by this Forum vide order dated 1.12.2009 which was partly allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to give demarcation of the plot in question to the complainant within 30 days and after the demarcation, the complainant shall submit his site plan for approval and the same shall be approved by the Opposite Party within next 30 days. Opposite Party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20000/- to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- and no order in that complaint was passed with regard to interest or the amenities  to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. Resultantly, the possession of the plot alongwith demarcation of the aforesaid plot was given to the complainant in the year 2010. It is also admitted case of the parties that the complainant submitted the site plan for approval by Opposite Party and the respondent/ Opposite Party  approved the site plan of the plot of the complainant for raising the construction, in the year  2010. But inspite of raising the construction over the  plot in question after approval of the site plan of the plot from the Opposite Party, the complainant filed another complaint bearing No. 945 of 2010 which was decided by this Forum vide order dated 7.3.2011. Said complaint was also allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to provide the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, etc. in the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, within 6 months from the date of order. Opposite Party submitted that basic amenities have been provided to the allottees of the plots in the Mall Mandi Scheme, Amritsar. Even non construction charges have already been waived  to the complainant and other allottees of that scheme as per court order and the complainant did not raise the construction over the plot in question. Thereafter, the complainant filed execution application bearing No. 129 of 2011 which was decided on 29.8.2012 as the Opposite Party could not complete the basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, so this Forum imposed penalty of Rs.7000/- under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act upon the respondent/ Opposite Party and out of which Rs.5000/- was paid to the applicant/ complainant. Thereafter  the applicant/ complainant filed another execution application No. 6 of 2013 which was decided on 2.1.2014 and this Forum  held Sh.Sandeep Rishi, PCS, Chairman of the Opposite Party, who was present in the Forum, guilty and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and out of that amount, the complainant was paid Rs.7500/- vide that order of this Forum. Ld.counsel for the respondent/ Opposite Party further submitted that  the respondent/ Opposite Party  has now complied with the order of this Forum dated 7.3.2011 and has filed an affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Rishi, PCS, Chairman of the Opposite Party and has also filed details of investments Ex.R9 i.e. an amount of Rs.2664.81 lacs, has been spent to provide the basic amenities in the scheme i.e. Mall Mandi Scheme, Amritsar in which the plot of the complainant is situated and has also filed photographs Ex.OP1 to OP8 and Ex.OP9 to Ex.OP18 to prove that the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads as well as electricity have been provided in that scheme  by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party has also moved an application for the appointment of the Local Commissioner to verify these facts and report, but the complainant opposed that application. Resultantly, that application moved by the Opposite Party for the appointment of the Local Commissioner was not allowed.
6. From the record of this case as well as history of the complaints as well as execution applications filed by the complainant it stands fully proved that when the present execution application has been filed by the complainant, the Opposite Party submitted that basic amenities have been provided to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated and they also submitted that owner of the plot bearing No. B-66 in that scheme which is just opposite to the plot of the complainant, has been raising construction over his plot as is evident from the photographs Ex.OP9 to Ex.OP11, Ex.OP13 and Ex.OP18 which have been duly proved by Mohan Lal Lochan, Junior Engineer of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party has also filed affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Rishi, PCS, Chairman of the Opposite Party in this regard  alongwith the details of the investment made Ex.R9 by the Opposite Party for the development of the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. Sh.Sandeep Rishi, PCS, Chairman of the Opposite Party in his affidavit dated 17.11.2014 has categorically stated that the Opposite Party has provided the basic amenities i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, etc.  in the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. Opposite Party has also sanctioned  the site plan of the complainant to raise his construction over his plot. Opposite Party has sanctioned/ invested Rs.2664.81 lacs as detailed in the list Ex.R9 for the development in the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. The applicant/ complainant  filed counter affidavit dated 16.1.2015 Ex.A1 in which he raised only two objections that main motorable road for entry into the scheme near Saragari School towards plot of the complainant has not been completed and second objection that the work for attaching the sewerage system with main line of disposal is pending and is being carried out by the Opposite Party till that date i.e. 16.1.2015. So, the Opposite Party was directed to  complete that part of the amenities also and now the Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Mohan Lal Lochan, Junior Engineer of the Opposite Party Ex.RW2/A in which said witness deposed that Opposite Party has constructed  35’ wide road from near Saragari School to the plot of the complainant and other allottees of that area and the same is in working condition. He has also deposed that the water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, etc.  have already  been installed in the scheme, particularly to the plot of the complainant which are in working condition and the sewerage system has been attached with the main line of disposal. In this regard, Opposite Party has also produced completion plan from Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. So, it stands fully proved on record that both the objections taken by the applicant/ complainant  in his counter affidavit dated 16.1.2015 that motorable roads into the scheme near Saragari School towards the plot of the complainant has now been completed and 35’ wide road is working as is evident from the photographs Ex.OP9 to  Ex.OP11, Ex.OP13 and Ex.OP18 and the sewerage system is in working condition and the swerage system is attached with the main line of disposal of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Now after filing of the affidavit by Kewal Krishan, Junior Engineer of Opposite Party Ex.RW1/1 proving the photographs Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 and the affidavit of Mohan Lal Lochan, Junior Engineer of Opposite Party Ex.RW2/A proving that basic amenities have already been provided by Opposite Party to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, the complainant filed another counter affidavit dated 3.12.2015 Ex.A6 in which he has objected that motorable road leading to the plot of the complainant is incomplete and the work of the sewerage is still in progress, as is evidence from the photographs Ex.A7 to Ex.A17 and complainant took another objection that regular electricity supply at the site where the plot B-66 which is quite opposite to the plot of the complainant, has also not been provided. Said plot has been given temporary electricity connection from  Maqboolpura Colony which is not part of the Mall Mandi Scheme.
7. We have gone through the entire record produced by both the parties, particularly the affidavit filed by both the parties as well as  photographs produced and proved on record by both the parties and have come to the conclusion that first objection raised by the complainant that motorable road leading to his plot is incomplete, is not tenable because the photographs Ex.OP9 to Ex.OP11, Ex.OP13 and Ex.OP18 fully proves that  motorable road to the plot of the complainant is complete and is working. The complainant himself has admitted that plot No.B-66 is quite opposite of the plot of the complainant and the motorable road to the plot No.B-66 is fully working as is evident from the photographs Ex.OP9 to Ex.OP11, Ex.OP13 and Ex.OP18. Not only this, owner of that plot No.B-66 in the same locality which is quite opposite of the plot of the complainant has been raising construction over his plot. Second objection raised by the applicant/ complainant  that electricity connection to the plot No.B-66 which is quite opposite to the plot of the complainant, has been given by the Opposite Party as temporary electricity connection and has been given from Maqboolpura Colony. Opposite Party has categorically stated that the electricity supply which is even under ground has been supplied to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. Transformers have been installed in the scheme which are quite evident from the photographs Ex.OP9 to Ex.OP18 produced and proved by the opposite party. Plot which is under construction is always given temporary electricity connection and not regular  domestic electric connection as per the instructions, rules and regulations of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his affidavit that temporary electricity connection has been given to the plot No.B-66 which is still under construction and he could not be given  regular domestic electricity connection until the construction work is completed. The complainant never applied for electricity connection to his plot, nor he applied for the water supply connection, nor he applied for sewerage connection to his plot which is quite opposite  to the plot No.B-66 which is under construction. So, he can not be allowed to state that the Opposite Party could not provide the basic amenities to the complainant i.e. water supply, sewerage, electricity, etc.  Had the complainant applied for these connections and the Opposite Party could not have provided the same then and only then the complainant could state that the Opposite Party has failed to provide the basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated. Not only this, the Opposite Party has filed an application for  appointment of Local Commissioner to verify and report that the basic amenities have been provided to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated, which was  vehemently opposed by the complainant and due to the opposition by the complainant, that application filed by the Opposite Party was not  allowed by this Forum. Here also shows that the intention of the complainant is not bonafide. Had the intention of the applicant/ complainant been bonafide, he should have not opposed that application for appointment of Local Commissioner, rather he should support that application so that  the true facts should have  come on record. So, all this fully proves that basic amenities to the scheme in which the plot of the complainant is situated i.e. water supply, sewerage, motorable roads, etc. as ordered by this Forum  vide order dated 7.3.2011 have already been provided by the Opposite Party.
8.  Not only this, the complainant has also concealed the facts that earlier he had filed complaint bearing No. 596 of 2009 which was decided by this Forum on 1.12.2009 in which also, the complainant has claimed demarcation of his plot, basic amenities and approval of the site plan, so that  the complainant could raise construction over his plot. That complaint was allowed and the Opposite Party gave demarcation/ actual possession of the plot in question to the complainant in the year 2010 and also sanctioned the site plan presented by the complainant for raising construction over the plot in question and the complainant in that complaint had received Rs.20,000/- as compensation  and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Not only this, the complainant has also concealed the fact that while deciding second complaint on 7.3.2011 this Forum has also awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Not only this, the complainant has also received Rs.5000/- out of the amount of fine imposed upon the Opposite Party while deciding the execution application No.129 of 2011, on 29.8.2012. Not only this, the complainant has also received Rs.7500/- out of fine imposed upon the Opposite Party while deciding the execution application No.6 of 2013 on 2.1.2014 and the complainant has not mentioned all these facts in the present execution application.
9. So, from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  there is no merit in this execution application and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to 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: 09-12-2015.                                                                  (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                      President

hrg                                                       (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member