STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 175 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 28.06.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 22.08.2017 |
Bimla Nagpal w/o Sh.Jagan Nath, R/o H.No.419/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, presently residing at H.No.223, NFL Enclave, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.
……Appellant
V e r s u s
Chandigarh Housing Board through its Secretary, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
…….Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 06.06.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 1011/2016.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
Argued by: Mr.Somesh Gupta, advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Jogeshwar Singh Sathi, advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 6.6.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which her complaint was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Sh.Madan Lal, who was allottee of Dwelling Unit No.419/2, MIG-III, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, during his life time, had executed a Will on 31.7.1992 in favour of the complainant. He expired on 8.3.1993. After his death, the complainant, on the basis of unregistered Will, applied to OP for transfer of ownership of the said Unit in her name. The OP vide letter dated 9.10.1995 asked the complainant to submit the Will duly probated by the Competent Court to proceed further in the matter. The complainant instead of getting the Will probated, filed a Civil Suit for declaration, which was decreed in her favour vide order dated 19.9.2006(C3). Thereafter, the complainant again approached the OP for getting the needful done. The OP vide letter dated 24.4.2007 asked the complainant to submit certified copy of probated Will. Accordingly the complainant filed petition for grant of Probate of unregistered Will dated 31.7.1992 before District Judge, Chandigarh on 25.2.2009. The said petition for grant of Probate was dismissed on 17.8.2012 (C-6), and complainant then filed F.A.O No.240 of 2013 before the Hon’ble High Court against the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2012 wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed that in the light of the decree passed by the Civil Court, which was binding between the parties, there was no requirement for getting the Will probated and the Civil Court’s decree passed in favour of Bimla Nagpal was as good a decree as any one passed after consent and the same could be given effect to as per rules and in view of the said observation, F.A.O. was withdrawn vide order dated 21.1.2013(C7) with liberty to apply before the Chandigarh Housing Board on the basis of said decree. The complainant made representation on 12.3.2013 to the OP for getting the needful done which was followed by several reminders. Even on the asking of the Executive Engineer of OP, minor violations in the Unit were removed and thereafter, again representation was made to the OP but to no effect. The complainant then filed CWP No.15016 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was disposed of on 20.9.2016, when the transfer order dated 19.9.2016 (C26) was handed over on same day in the Court itself. It was stated by the complainant that a statement was made on behalf of the OP before the Hon’ble High Court that for delay in transferring the dwelling unit, an inquiry had been marked and appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law. However, nothing was done and the complainant suffered physical harassment and mental tension due to non-transfer of ownership of the Unit, in question, in her name, which remained pending for more than 23 years. Ultimately the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Forum seeking compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed. The OP did not dispute the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that instead of complying with the formalities and removing building violations, the complainant approached the Courts. Ultimately CWP was filed before the Hon’ble High Court and its during pendency, after getting the transfer fee, the dwelling unit was transferred in the name of the complainant on 19.9.2016. It was stated that there was no intentional delay on the part of the OP in transferring the unit in the name of the complainant. The delay occurred due to long drawn litigation by the complainant without impleading the Chandigarh Housing Board. It was stated that as complainant was enjoying peaceful possession of the dwelling unit, she was not entitled to any compensation. The other allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant.
5. We have heard Counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the view taken by the Forum, in dismissing the complaint, is justified. It is on record that the appellant/complainant had applied for transfer of dwelling unit in her name on the basis of an unregistered Will. When he applied for change of ownership, she was intimated to get the Will probated. However, it appears that she wrongly filed a suit for declaration. Thereafter, when again she was asked to get the Will probated, she did so. The process took lot of time. It is also on record that she had even approached the Hon’ble High Court. Ultimately ownership of the dwelling unit was transferred in her name. If she had suffered any loss, it was her bounden duty to press her claim for compensation before the High Court but she failed to do so. After a lapse of lot of time, and on getting benefit of High Court’s order, it was not open to the appellant/complainant to initiate fresh proceedings before the Consumer Fora. Under the above circumstances, we find no case made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
7. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
8. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
22.08.2017
