BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 81 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 08.04.2021
Date of Decision : 09.01.2023.
Bimla Devi, aged 63 years, wife of Shri Dalip Chand son of Shri Shanker Ram (daughter of Shri Mani Ram), resident of House No.4-C, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.
2. Administrator, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Hisar, District Hisar.
3. Estate Officer, Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Complainant’s husband Dalip Chand in person.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that she is the re-allottee in respect of plot measuring 06 marlas bearing No. 833, Sector 20, Part-2 HUDA, Sirsa. Earlier Shri Satbeer Singh son of Shri Mani Ram real brother of complainant was the allottee of said plot vide allotment letter no. 784 dated 7.4.2000. The said plot was transferred in favour of complainant by her brother vide registered deed of transfer of ownership under Blood Relation within family dated 22.2.2017 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sirsa at Sr. No. 1694 dated 30.5.2017. Thereafter, plot was re-allotted in favour of complainant by ops vide allotment letter dated 16.06.2017. It is further averred that ops had charged a sum of Rs.9233/- on 19.04.2002 and Rs.8188/- on 17.09.2002 i.e. total sum of Rs.17,421/- as enhancement charges from the allottee of above plot whereas the ops were not legally entitled to charge the above amount as enhancement charges from the allottee. That ops had even charged such enhancement charges from number of other allottees, so such plot holders had filed consumer complaints which were decided on 20.10.2005 wherein the Forum had ordered for refund of such enhancement charges to the respective plot holder. It is further averred that case of complainant is at par with the aforesaid case of Ekta Jain and other plot holders, therefore, she is legally entitled to refund of the aforesaid amount of enhancement charges from ops. That complainant has already written number of letters to the ops on 28.06.2016, 27.08.2016, 23.11.2016, 14.12.2016 and 21.12.2016 and then on 3.9.2020 but the ops did not pay any heed to the same and now a week back, they have refused for the same. That ops by their such act and conduct have been indulged in unfair trade practice and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppal, complaint is hopelessly time barred, suppression of true and material facts and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is submitted that ops have demanded the enhancement amount from the allottees as per terms and conditions of the allotment letters issued to the allottees and they deposited the enhanced amount with the ops and they were legally bound to deposit the enhanced amount to the ops. The complainant has no concern or connection with above said complaint. The previous owner Satbir Singh never challenged the enhancement before any Court of law. The complainant became owner of said plot as per family settlement dated 22.02.2017 and re-allotment letter dated 16.06.2017. It is further submitted that complainant became the owner in possession of the said plot on 22.02.2017 and as such, as to how she can write letters dated 28.6.2016, 27.8.2016, 23.11.2016, 14.12.2016 and 21.12.2016 as alleged. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Complainant has tendered affidavit of her husband Sh. Dalip Chand Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajender Kumar, Estate Officer as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R6.
6. We have heard husband of complainant and learned counsel for ops and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It is own case of the complainant that Sh. Satbeer Singh son of Shri Mani Ram real brother of complainant was allotted plot in question bearing no.833, Sector 20, Part II, Sirsa vide allotment letter No. 784 dated 7.4.2000. Thereafter, said plot was transferred in favour of complainant by her brother Satbeer Singh vide registered deed of transfer of ownership on 22.02.2017 which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 30.05.2017 and thereafter plot was re-allotted to the complainant on 16.06.2017. According to the complainant, the ops had charged a sum of Rs.9233/- on 19.04.2002 and Rs.8188/- on 17.09.2002 i.e. total sum of Rs.17,421/- as enhancement charges from the allottee of the above plot i.e. from Satbeer Singh brother of complainant. The complainant has claimed refund of the amount of Rs.17,421/- charged from the brother of complainant Satbeer Singh in the year 2002 on the ground that ops have wrongly charged the said amount from him and in case titled as Ekta Jain and others vs. HUDA and others decided on 20.10.2005, the Forum had ordered for refund of such enhancement charges to the respective plot holder. The complainant has also alleged that case of complainant is at par with the aforesaid case of Ekta Jain and other plot holders, therefore, she is legally entitled to refund of the aforesaid amount of enhancement charges from ops. But however, we found no substance in the case of the complainant and said demand of the complainant because the above said amount of Rs.17,421/- was charged from the original allottee Satbir Singh a long back in the year 2002 and present complaint has been filed by complainant Smt. Bimla Devi on 08.04.2021 i.e. after a period of almost 19 years. If the said amount was wrongly charged from brother of complainant in the year 2002, then he should have also filed the complaint alongwith other plot holders i.e. Ekta Jain etc. whose cases filed in the year 2002 have been decided in the year 2005. Though complainant has alleged that she has already written number of letters to the ops on 28.06.2016, 27.08.2016, 23.11.2016, 14.12.2016 and 21.12.2016 and then on 3.9.2016 for refund of the aforesaid amount, but admittedly the plot in question was transferred in her favour on 22.2.2017 by her brother and same was allotted in her favour by allotment letter dated 16.06.2017, so before 16.06.2017 she was not having any authority to claim refund of the aforesaid amount from the ops. Moreover, sending of the letters by complainant in the year 2016 and then in 2020 are not helpful to the complainant because these letters have also been sent after a lapse of 14 years from the date of deposit of the amount which was deposited in the year 2002 and therefore, present complaint is hopelessly time barred. Moreover, complainant has not placed on file any authority given by brother of complainant i.e. original allottee to claim amount deposited by him from ops. Transferring of the plot in question in favour of complainant by her brother does not give any right to the complainant to claim amount deposited by his brother in the year 2002. So, the present complaint which is hopelessly time barred and has not been filed by proper person is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 09.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
