BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.288/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 19.01.2015.

Sunita w/o Sh. Rakam Singh r/o Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Satish Dhos, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Dinesh Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she has submitted the plan for sanction of construction on her land/plot situated at Ambala Road, Kaithal to the Op on 27.11.2009.  It is alleged that the complainant has completed all the formalities for the sanction of plan and Op has demanded the amount of Rs.13,485/- as development charges.  It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited the said amount of Rs.13,485/- vide receipt No.12, book No.167 dt. 27.11.2009.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the Op for sanction of plan several times but the Op did not sanction the plan and rejected the same on 27.12.2009.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this complaint.  However, the complainant should file the appeal against the rejection of the site-plan of the building before Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal for approval of the site-plan of the building under Section 240 of MC Act; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op never took the signature of the complainant on any paper.  The Op has rejected the site-plan of the building of complainant after application of mind.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has submitted the plan for sanction of construction on her land/plot situated at Ambala Road, Kaithal to the Op on 27.11.2009.  The complainant has completed all the formalities for the sanction of plan and deposited the fee as required by the Op.  The complainant visited the Op for sanction of plan several times but the Op did not sanction the plan and rejected the same on 27.12.2009.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this complaint.  The complainant should file the appeal against the rejection of the site-plan of the building before Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal for approval of the site-plan of the building under Section 240 of MC Act.  Moreover, the OP wrote a letter dt. 27.11.2009 (Annexure-B) to the complainant and some discrepancies were sought in the site-plan and it was also mentioned in the said letter that the present site-plan falls under the jurisdiction of Distt. Planner.  So, the Op rightly rejected the site-plan of complainant.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Op.  There is no momentum of force in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 19.01.2015.           (Harisha Mehta),         (Rajbir Singh),

                                   Member.                 Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.288/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 19.01.2015.

Sunita w/o Sh. Rakam Singh r/o Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Satish Dhos, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Dinesh Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she has submitted the plan for sanction of construction on her land/plot situated at Ambala Road, Kaithal to the Op on 27.11.2009.  It is alleged that the complainant has completed all the formalities for the sanction of plan and Op has demanded the amount of Rs.13,485/- as development charges.  It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited the said amount of Rs.13,485/- vide receipt No.12, book No.167 dt. 27.11.2009.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the Op for sanction of plan several times but the Op did not sanction the plan and rejected the same on 27.12.2009.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this complaint.  However, the complainant should file the appeal against the rejection of the site-plan of the building before Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal for approval of the site-plan of the building under Section 240 of MC Act; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op never took the signature of the complainant on any paper.  The Op has rejected the site-plan of the building of complainant after application of mind.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has submitted the plan for sanction of construction on her land/plot situated at Ambala Road, Kaithal to the Op on 27.11.2009.  The complainant has completed all the formalities for the sanction of plan and deposited the fee as required by the Op.  The complainant visited the Op for sanction of plan several times but the Op did not sanction the plan and rejected the same on 27.12.2009.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this complaint.  The complainant should file the appeal against the rejection of the site-plan of the building before Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal for approval of the site-plan of the building under Section 240 of MC Act.  Moreover, the OP wrote a letter dt. 27.11.2009 (Annexure-B) to the complainant and some discrepancies were sought in the site-plan and it was also mentioned in the said letter that the present site-plan falls under the jurisdiction of Distt. Planner.  So, the Op rightly rejected the site-plan of complainant.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Op.  There is no momentum of force in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 19.01.2015.           (Harisha Mehta),         (Rajbir Singh),

                                   Member.                 Presiding Member.