DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No : 229/2014
Date of Institution : 3.11.2014
Date of Decision : 4.5.2015.
In the matter of:
Chanchal Rani, aged about 48 years, wife of Gopal Krishan resident of Sekha Road, Street No. 1, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
...Complainant
Versus
Improvement Trust, 22 Acre Scheme, Barnala, through its Executive Officer.
...Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
For the complainant : Sh. S.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Anuj Mohan, Advocate
ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Chanchal Rani complainant (herein referred as to CC for short), has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Party (herein referred as to O.P for short), on the ground that, CC has purchased a plot measuring 200 square yards bearing plot No. 93 in Maharaja Aggarsain Enclave, ITI Chowk, Barnala, from Sohan Lal son of Shri Ram resident of Barnala, who was the original allottee and CC wanted to transfer the same on her own name. It is alleged that, CC alongwith Sh. Sohan Lal, visited the office of O.P and moved an application dated 26.3.2013, for the transfer of above said plot on her name.
It is further alleged that, for transferring the above said plot in the name of the CC, O.P demanded bribe in the presence of Amit Kumar and Gopal Krishan. It is alleged that, CC did not want to give any bribe, because it was the duty of the O.P to transfer the plot in the name of CC, as CC completed all the formalities within time, but O.P linger on the matter on one pretext or the other just to satisfy his illegal demand of bribe.
It is further alleged that, on 21.1.2014 the above said plot was transferred on the name of CC and the O.P has received an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of fine, for not doing the construction during the period from 1.7.2013 to 30.6.2014 and Rs. 55,000/- on account of transfer fee. It is alleged that, when the application was filed by the CC on 26.3.2013 at that time the transfer fee was only Rs. 16,500/- and if the plot was transferred on the name of CC at that time, then no fine had to be paid by the CC. It is specifically alleged that, due to the act of the O.P, CC had to pay Rs. 68,500/- unnecessarily.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, CC has sought the following reliefs.-
a) OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 68,500/- alongwith interest till its realization.
b) Further, OP be directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 7,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complaint of the CC is signed and is also verified.
2. In reply, O.P has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that, there was no privity of contract between the CC and the O.P at the time of depositing of the non-construction charges and the transfer fee qua plot No. 93, as such CC has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. Further, CC has got no cause of action to file the present complaint, as the CC has not deposited any non-construction charges or transfer fee qua plot No. 93, with the O.P. The 'jurisdiction' of this Forum is also challenged. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further, CC has not come to the Forum with clean hands etc.
On merits, it is submitted that, one Sohan Lal son of Shri Ram resident of Barnala, was allotted a plot bearing No. 93 of 200 square yards under General Category, situated in Maharaja Aggarsain Enclave, Barnala, vide allotment letter No. 1275 dated 11.6.2010 and he was bound to construct the said plot within three years of allotment, but Sohan Lal failed to raise the construction on the plot within stipulated period. Rather on 26.3.2013 he submitted an application to the O.P, whereby he sought permission of the O.P to transfer the said plot in the name of CC. On this, O.P issued letter No. 861 dated 23.5.2013 to Mohan Lal to deposit the necessary transfer fee with the O.P. However, said Sohan Lal thereafter kept mum and failed to deposit the necessary transfer fee, rather turned up on 21.1.2014 and deposited Rs. 30,000/- on account of non-construction charges for the period from 1.7.2013 to 30.6.2014 and Rs. 55,000/- on account of transfer fee with the O.P vide receipt No. 027 dated 21.1.2014 and the same was deposited by Sohan Lal voluntarily and without any protest with his own free consent.
It is specifically submitted that, CC had not moved the application dated 26.3.2013, the same was moved by Sohan Lal, the original allottee only, for transferring the plot in the name of CC. It is submitted that, letter No. 861 dated 23.5.2013 was sent to Sohan Lal, the original allottee by the O.P to inform that, the permission for transfer had been granted and he was called upon to deposit the necessary transfer fee with the O.P, but he kept mum and deposited the transfer fee and non-construction charges on 21.1.2014. It is specifically submitted that, no transfer fee or non-construction charges were deposited by the CC. Further, CC has made a totally false allegation that, she had paid Rs. 68,500/- unnecessarily, to the O.P. Even, CC had not moved any application dated 26.3.2013, before the O.P.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The version of the OP is signed and verified. Further, the same is supported by an affidavit of Gora Lal Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Barnala.
3. The CC in support of her complaint has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, which included her own affidavit, copy of transfer letter, copy of receipt dated 21.1.2014, copy of receipt dated 22.6.2012, an affidavit of Gopal Krishan and has closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, O.P in support of its version has tendered into evidence an affidavit of Gora Lal EO Ex.O.P1, copy of allotment letter Ex.O.P2, copy of application dated 26.3.2013 Ex.O.P3, copy of letter No. 861 dated 23.5.2013 Ex.O.P4 and has closed the evidence.
5. We have gone through the complaint, version filed by the O.P, evidence tendered by the parties and hearing the arguments of the parties at length.
The case of the CC is that, CC has purchased a plot measuring 200 square yards bearing plot No. 93 in Maharaja Aggarsain Enclave, ITI Chowk, Barnala, from Sohan Lal son of Shri Ram resident of Barnala, who was the original allottee and CC wanted to transfer the same on her own name. For this purpose CC moved an application dated 26.3.2013 for the transfer of above said plot on her name, but the O.P demanded bribe in the presence of Amit Kumar and Gopal Krishan. It is further alleged in the complaint that, on 21.1.2014 the above said plot was transferred on the name of CC and the O.P has received an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of fine for not doing the construction during the period from 1.7.2013 to 30.6.2014 and Rs. 55,000/- on account of transfer fee total amounting to Rs. 85,000/- and due to the deficiency in service of the O.P, CC had to pay Rs. 68,500/- unnecessarily.
In support of its version, O.P tendered into evidence allotment letter Ex.O.P2 dated 11.6.2010, wherein it is clearly mentioned that, the construction was to be completed by the allottee within three years from the date of allotment, otherwise the allottee will deposit the non-construction charges as fixed by the State Government. Further, Ex.O.P3 clearly shows that, the application was moved by Sohan Lal, the original allottee not by the CC.
It was argued by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P that, Smt. Chanchal Rani, CC is not the original allottee of the plot No. 93 of 200 square yards and the same is allotted to one Sohan Lal son of Shri Ram resident of Barnala, under General Category situated in Maharaja Aggarsain Enclave at Barnala, vide allotment letter No. 1275 dated 11.6.2010 Ex.O.P2, but in rebuttal CC has failed to bring on record any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence in support of her case.
It was further argued by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P that, there was no privity of contract between the CC and the O.P, and no amount was deposited by the CC with the O.P, rather the amount was deposited by the original allottee and he has not filed any complaint nor he has claimed any refund, because he had voluntarily and without any protest deposited the amount. Further, he was kept mum for about 8 months and did not care to deposit the necessary transfer fee in spite of letter dated 23.5.2013, written to him by the O.P Ex.O.P4.
During arguments, Ld. Advocate for the O.P has cited one judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2008 (2) CLT 688, in which it was held that,
“The Consumer Fora does not have jurisdiction to go into the validity of demand of composition fee and extension fee made from the complainant and in this ruling the decision of the case of HUDA Vs Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479 was followed and order passed by the Fora below quashing the demand was set aside and was held that, the order passed by the Fora was not legally sustainable and the complaint was dismissed. It was further held that, the Commission has got no jurisdiction into the correctness of the demand of composition fee and extension fee, which was made by the HUDA from the complainant.”
In view of the discussion held above, this complaint is dismissed. However, the CC is at liberty to approach the Appropriate Authority/Court for the redressal of her grievance. No order as to cost. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
4th day of May, 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
