KRISHAN C CHUGH filed a consumer case on 20 Jul 2016 against HUDA in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/152/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 29 Aug 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No : 152 of 2016
Date of Institution: 18.02.2016
Date of Decision: 20.07.2016
Krishan Chand Chugh s/o Sh. Hari Chand Chugh, Resident of House No.1037/13, Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.
2. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra.
Respondents/Opposite Parties
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member
Present: Shri Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for respondents.
O R D E R
B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated November 4th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby Complaint No.266 of 2009 was dismissed.
2. Krishan Chugh-complainant/appellant, was allotted Plot No.705, Sector-5, Urban Estate Kurukshetra vide allotment letter bearing memo No.3895 dated 14th June, 1985 (Exhibit Annexure-1). The possession of the plot was offered vide letter No.10438 dated 6th September, 1994 (Annexure-2).
3. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that there is main sewerage-hole at a distance of 0.7 meter and an electricity pole has been installed at a distance of 2.2 meters in front of his plot. One manhole of rainy water is also in front of plot No.704, which adjoins to his plot. In one corner, there is another electricity pole at a distance of 2.4 meters. He requested the HUDA authorities for Redressal of his grievance but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’), 1986 was filed.
4. The opposite parties-respondents (HUDA) contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant on September 6th, 1994 whereas the complaint was filed on 17th April, 2009. So, the complaint was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 24A of the Act. There was complete development in the area. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
5. After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has urged that there is blockage of passage in the main entrance due to which the appellant cannot construct his house. In support, reliance has been placed upon the photograph Annexure A-3.
7. Indisputably, the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant on 6th September, 1994 and the complainant agitated the matter for the first time on 5th October, 2002. Though, the opposite parties have contended that the construction over plots No.704, 733 and 732 has already been carried out and there was no hindrance in the construction over the plot in question, however, the right of the complainant to seek the redressal of his grievance that there is some hindrance in the construction, has to be considered by the authorities of HUDA. In view of this, the appeal is disposed of with the observation that in case the complainant approaches the HUDA authorities, they may consider the representation of the complainant and decide the issue after physical verification of the spot.
Announced 20.07.2016 | (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member | (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member | (Nawab Singh) President |
CL
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.