Haryana

Karnal

198/2013

Sneh Kaushal W/o Naresh Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ashok Kapoor

12 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.198 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt:25.4.2013

                                                               Date of decision:14.09.2015

 

 

Smt. Sneh Kaushal wife of Sh.Naresh Kaushal resident of house no.884/6, U.E.Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

                              Versus

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal through its Estate Officer, Sector 12, Karnal.

                                                           ……… Opposite party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pawan Kajal Advocate for the OP.

                  

ORDER:

 

                    This complaint has been filed  by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  on the averments  that Smt.Indu Sharma wife of Sh.Pushpinder Sharma was the allottee/owner of the property/house bearing No.884, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal vide allotment letter bearing No.11309 dated 11.6.1987. Lateron conveyance deed was got registered at Sr.No. 1920/1 dated 22.06.1992 in her favour. Smt.Indu Sharma executed  a General Power of  Attorney  in favour of Sh.Harbhajan Singh,  vide deed No.3177 dated 13.3.1992, who got conveyance deed  registered in favour of Indu Sharma. The said general power of attorney was cancelled by Smt.Indu Sharma, vide deed no.66 dated 2.11.2011. It has further been alleged that Smt. Indu Sharma  appointed  Smt.Raj Rani  as general attorney, vide G.PA. bearing No.880 dated 2.5.1992, who further appointed Sh.Naresh Kaushal as  G.P.A.  vide deed no.  755 dated 12.7.2011. Sh.Naresh Kaushal,  as GPA of Smt.Indu Sharma sold the house in question to the complainant, vide registered sale deed   No.242 dated 11.4.2012.   Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party ( in short OP) to transfer the house in  her favour, but the OP asked her to submit no objection certificate of Harbhajan Singh and  affidavit of Harbhajan Singh  with his personal appearance. The complainant told that Harbhajan Singh had no right, title or interest, therefore, his no objection certificate, affidavit and personal appearance were not required, but the OP remained adamant and refused to transfer the property in her name, which amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant is not consumer  as defined in Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act),  as she is neither  allottee nor re allottee of the property in question; that the complaint is not legally maintainable ; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that Smt. Indu Sharma wife of Pushpinder was  not the allottee of the house no.884 Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal,   but the plot was transferred in her name, vide  transfer letter no.2726 dated 18.2.1987.  It has further been pleaded that  after the receipt of the  deed of cancellation of GPA  dated 13.3.1992,  letters bearing No.15262/1005 dated 15.12.2011 and 17.1.2012   were written to Smt. Indu Sharma allottee for seeking clarification  of her position after  cancellation of General Power of Attorney. A copy of the said letter was sent to Harbhajan Singh also.  However, no clarification was received in the office of OP. Indu Sharma  without cancelling  the general Power of attorney in favour of Harbhajan Singh executed another general power of attorney  dated 2.5.1992 in favour of Smt.Raj Rani,  whereas she was not competent to do so without getting cancelled previous general power of attorney. It has further been submitted that Raj Rani was not competent to appoint any person as special power of attorney on the basis of alleged general power of attorney in her favour and such  instructions have already been issued on 20.3.2012 by the Chief Administrator, HUDA on the basis of settled law.  It has also been alleged that property in question was transferred without seeking prior permission of the OP and as such   sale is hit  by provisions of Section 15 (6) of the HUDA Act, 1977. Before purchasing the property, requisite permission was not sought by the complainant, therefore, her request for re allotment could not be considered and OP  rightly sought no objection certificate from Harbhajan Singh , his affidavit and personal appearance.

 

3.                In the evidence of complainant, her affidavit  Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 have been tendered.

 

4.                In evidence of the OP, affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar,  Assistant Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O3 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the  OP and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                As per  the case of the complainant, the plot/house No. 884 sector 6, U.E. Karnal was allotted to Smt.Indu Sharma and conveyance deed  was executed in her favour on  22.06.1992. Smt.Indu Sharma appointed   Sh.Harbhajan Singh as her general power of attorney holder,   vide registered deed dated 13.3.1992,   but without getting the same cancelled ,she executed general power of attorney in favour of Smt.Raj Rani on 2.5.1992.Smt.Raj Rani further appointed Sh.Naresh Kaushal, as attorney on 12.7.2011 and on the basis of the same Sh.Naresh Kaushal executed the sale deed dated 11.4.2012 in favour of his wife i.e. the  complainant. The general power of attorney in favour of Sh.Harbhajan Singh was  cancelled by Smt.Indu Sharma on 2.11.2011.  The complainant applied for transfer of the plot in her name in the record of the OP on the basis of sale deed in her favour.

 

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very out set that Smt. Indu Sharma  herself or through her general power of attorney  holder never sought any permission to transfer the plot/house in question  in favour of the complainant. Smt. Indu Sharma  after allotment of the plot could very well be considered as Consumer of the OP, but the complainant who purchased the plot/property without seeking  prior permission of the OP cannot be considered as Consumer  of the OP by any stretch of imagination, because she does not fall within the ambit of the definition of Consumer as defined u/s 2 (d) of the Act Therefore, she has no right to raise consumer dispute against the OP and as such  her complaint is not maintainable.

 

8.                As the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not consumer of the OP, there is no need to go into other aspects of the case.

 

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint being not maintainable, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:14.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

Present:        None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pawan Kajal Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:14.09.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.