Punjab

Sangrur

CC/28/2017

Jagga Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sanjeev Goyal

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    28

                                                Instituted on:      18.01.2017

                                                Decided on:       02.06.2017

 

 

1.Jagga Singh son of Sh. Dana Singh; 2. Satbir Singh son of Nazar Singh, both residents of Amarpura Mohalla, Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     Improvement Trust, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Chairman/Executive Officer.

2.     Director, Local Bodies, State of Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jagga Singh and Satbir Singh, complainants (referred to as complainants in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that they are the owners of the plot bearing number 29 measuring 150 square yards situated at Rose Avenue Scheme, Malerkotla as the said plot was purchased by the complainants from one Gagandeep Singh son of Balwinder Singh and the same was duly transferred by the Ops in their names vide letter number 1093 dated 12.10.2015. The grievance of the complainant is that on 2.11.2015, the complainants approached the Ops to give the possession of the plot to raise construction thereon and after passing of a period of five months, the Ops sent letter number 86 dated 8.3.2016 to the complainant intimating that the possession of the plot cannot be delivered as there is mosque on the plot in question, as such the complainants requested the Ops to give another plot as per the rules. After completing the formalities, the Ops agreed to give an alternate plot bearing number 23 having 175 sq. yards.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops so many times to deliver the possession of the plot number 23 as passed vide resolution number 148 by the Ops, but the same was not given.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to deliver the possession of the plot number 29 or the possession of plot number 23 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, it has been admitted that the plot in question was purchased by the complainant and the same was duly transferred in their name. It is further admitted that on some part of the plot number 29 there is mosque, as such the Ops are unable to deliver the possession of the plot number 29. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.  Apart from that, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainants have got no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainants are not the consumers. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainants has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-15 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Pardeep Kumar, JE and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased a plot number 29 measuring 150 square yards in Rose Avenue Scheme, Malerkotla from one Gagandeep Singh son of Balwinder Singh and the same was duly transferred in the name of the complainants vide transfer letter number 1093 dated 12.10.2015, as is evident from the copy of letter on record as Ex.C-2.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainants are the consumer of the OPs as they had purchased the plot in question and the same was duly transferred by the Ops in the name of the complainants after getting requisite fee.

 

6.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainants is that when they approached the OPs to take the delivery of the possession of plot number 29 from the OPs, the Ops apprised the complainants vide letter dated 8.3.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4 that they are unable to deliver the possession of the plot, as on some part of the plot in question, there is a mosque exists.  Ex.C-7 is the copy of letter dated 26.6.2015, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if due to any reason, some problem arises to deliver the possession of the allotted plot to the allottee, then an alternative plot should be given and as such a proposal for the same be sent to the Government.  In the case in hand, it is proved on record that in some part of the plot number 29,  a mosque exists and as such, the Ops passed a resolution 148 regarding allotting of alternative plot to the complainants, a copy of resolution on record is Ex.C-13, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in the said scheme only one plot number 23 measuring 175 sq. yards is available and the same be allotted to the complainants and the complainants would be liable to pay the cost of 25 square yards, as earlier the complainants were having a plot of 150 square yards.   Ex.C-14 is the copy of indemnity bond submitted by the complainants to the Ops, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if there is any extra amount due to the size of the plot, then he will be liable to pay the same.  On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to corroborate their contention rather has produced only an affidavit of one Pardeep Kumar, JE wherein it has been stated that no approval was granted for allotment of plot number 23 to the complainants.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops, more so when, the complainants have produced on record the copy of resolution number 148, Ex.C-13 on record whereby it is clearly mentioned that alternate plot number 23 should be allotted to the complainant as on some part of plot number 29 a mosque exists. It is worth mentioning here that resolution for plot number 23 measuring 175 sq. yards was passed for allotment to the complainants, but the same was not allotted.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they withheld the allotment of plot number 23 to the complainants, which itself proves that the Ops are not only deficient in service and also have indulged in unfair trade practice by selling a plot where a mosque exists.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to allot and deliver the possession of plot number 23 measuring 175 sq. yards.  The complainants are bound to pay the costs of land as per rules for 25 sq. yards to be allotted in excess than the plot number 29. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        June 2, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member