BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1]     Gursharan Mann wife of Lt. Sh.Surjit Singh Mann.

2]     Harpreet Singh Mann son of late Sh.surjit Singh Mann

3]     Ms.Upinder Kaur, R/o H.N.81, Block-G, Masjit Moth,    GK-II, New Delhi-110048

Residents of H.No.G-81, Masjid Moth, GK-2, New Delhi-48, through GPA Sh.Subhash Sharma s/o Pt.Dewan Chand, r/.o H.No.356, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh

….…Complainants

                                V E R S U S

Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh

                                        ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:       SH.RAJINDER  SINGH  GILL   PRESIDING MEMBER

                MRS. MADHU  MUTNEJA               MEMBER

Argued by:         Sh.Karan, Adv. for Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant.

PER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

               The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Subhash Sharma, GPA of complainants, against OPs for rendering deficient & negligent services and for directing the respondent to transfer the property describable as House No.27, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh bearing RP No.8331 measuring 2 Kanals in favour of complainants.

                The complainants claim to be the legal heirs of late Sh.Surjit Singh Mann, who was the owner of aforesaid house.  Sh.Surjit Singh Mann died on 22.3.2009 at Delhi.

                The complainants have alleged that during the lifetime of Sh.Surjit Singh Mann, some unscrupulous persons had tried to eye the property of late Sh.Surjit Singh Mann and had tried to fraudulently transfer it in their name, showing Sh.Surit Singh Mann to be dead when he was actually alive.  When Sh.Surjit Singh Mann came to know of the fraud, he had taken up the matter personally with the Estate Officer and had also lodged an F.I.R. with the police in the matter.  The complainants have placed on record the copies of the documents and correspondence with regard to the said matter.

                After the death of Sh.Surjit Singh Mann, the complainants approached the Estate Officer/OP for transfer of the said house in their name being the successors & legal heirs of late Sh.Surjit Singh Mann.  The complainants have alleged that they were entitled under the Hindu Succession Act, to inherit the said property.  According to the complainants, the OP has requested them to get their rights over the property in question determined from the competent court of law.  The relevant copy of the letter of the Estate Officer has also been placed at annexure. The complainants have thus filed the instant complaint alleging that this letter of the OP tantamounts to rendering deficient and negligent services.  They have therefore prayed that the OP be directed to transfer the said property in their favour as well as pay compensation.

2]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainants on the point of admitting this complaint and have perused the documents placed on the file.   

3]             An ample and sufficient opportunity was provided to the ld.Counsel for the complainants for satisfying this Forum on the point of its admissibility as well as maintainability in view of the averment made therein.

4]             The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

5]             The complainants have relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, CPC 1994(1) 1 S.C.  wherein it has been held that :-

“…The service which is not only extended to actual users but those who are capable of using it are covered in the definition – Thus a government or semi-government body or a local authority is as much amendable to the Act as any private body rendering similar service……House construction – Service – Construction of a house or a flat is for the benefit of person for whom it is constructed – He may do it himself or hire services of a builder or contractor- When any statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefits of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor – If the service is defective then it would be unfair trade practice as defined under the Act.”  

6]             The matter in this complaint refers to a property where the legal heirs of the owner of H.No.27, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, are demanding that this property should be transferred in their name.  The Estate Officer in seeking the history is being cautious and has directed the complainants to bring the relevant documents to show their rights over the property in question from a Competent Court of Law.

7]             We do not find anything wrong in this approach of Estate Officer, who is showing caution to protect the interest of the real inheritors of the said property. 

8]             It is a case where the Consumer Forum in the light of its summary approach is not competent to decide the cases of succession.  The adoption of a cautionary approach by the Estate Officer, in our view, would not amount to any deficiency in service, rather non-adoption may be so.  Hence, at this stage, we deem it proper to dismiss this complaint being not fit for admission.  The complainants may approach the competent court to determine their right over the property in question. 

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.