ORDER

Paramjit Singh, President

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 370 in Scheme No. 1 of opposite parties Improvement Trust known as Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara. It is alleged that allotment was made for a consideration of Rs.36000/- for plot measuring approximate 400 square yards. It is also mentioned in the allotment letter that if during demarcation there is some variance in

-2-

the actual area and the allotted area, then the allottee will not have any right to dispute the same, meaning thereby the allottee was bound to accept the total area of the plot existing at the spot. If the area to the spot is less, than the allotted area, then the allottee will pay the consideration of the lesser area at the rate of Rs.1800/- per marla i.e. Rs.90/- per square yard and in case, the area was in excess at the spot, then the allottee was bound to pay the price of the excess area at the rate of the said allotment i.e. Rs.1800/- per marla of Rs.90/- per square yard. The complainant had submitted a site plan with the opposite party for sanction to construct a house over the plot so allotted. The opposite parties had sanctioned the site plan of the complainant on 25.8.1983. As per sanctioned site plan, the total area of the plot is 3983 square ft. The improvement Trust also issued certificate dated 9.11.1983 to the effect that the entire sale consideration has been deposited by the complainant.

2. That the price of the land was increased and the complainant vide memo No. 180 dated 5.2.1992 was directed to pay enhanced price of Rs.19832.36 paise with interest within 30 days. The complainant had deposited the amount with interest well within the time, but the complainant had misplaced the said receipt.

3. That the complainant is the owner in possession of the house although the sale deed was not executed in his favour. In the year 2009, the Government had issued notification that the allottees of the plot in Colonies floated by Improvement Trust in Punjab have got a chance of getting the sale deed executed in their favour from the respective Improvement Trust in the sum of the original sale

-3-

price, but the Trust started claiming that the complainant had not deposited with the Improvement Trust the costs of the excess area as pointed out by the Trust vide their letter No. 217 dated 23.1.1990 amounting to Rs.76,491/- and a sum of Rs.19,833/- as the increase in the allotment price. The complainant although had paid the said amount to the Trust, but was not having the said receipt, gave an undertaking dated 4.8.2009 to the Improvement Trust that he is ready to deposit the said amount and the sale deed be executed in his favour and the case be sent to the Government. The undertaking was obtained by the officials of the Trust under duress.

4. That inspite of furnishing the undertaking dated 4.8.2009, the officials of the Trust started lingering the matter on flimsy grounds. They started claiming that the area of plot No. 307 is in excess at the spot as such, the complainant has to pay an amount at the rate of Rs.1,70,000/- per marla for an area measuring 32.43 Square yards which is in excess. The complainant was served vide memo No.875 dated 4.8.2009 wrongly in this respect. The complainant protested against the illegal demand of the Trust and further represented that if any area is in excess, then complainant is ready to pay the price of the same at original price plus the enhancement of the allotment price, but the opposite party did not accede to the just request of the complainant and the complainant deposited Rs.4,70,071/- with Trust on 17.8.2009 against the illegal demand under protest. Even thereafter the opposite party did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

-4-

5. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed the written statement raising as many as five preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form, the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hand, complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and he has no cause of action to file the complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant at the rates mentioned in the complaint. The allotment was only for the residential purpose in which the construction of the house was to be made within three years. The reserve price was Rs.1800/- per marla. There was also a condition that if Land Acquisition Tribunal enhance the price of award and if the amount of the acquisition is increased due to any other reason or auditing in that event, the allottee would be liable to pay the enhanced amount and a certificate to this effect was issued by the opposite party Trust on 9.11.1983. Terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 13.2.1980 were admitted by the opposite parties. The opposite parties pleaded that misplacement of receipts by the complainant is a cooked up story. It was found that the area measuring 32.43 Square yards was found excess and the complainant deposited Rs.4,70,071/- with Trust on 17.8.2009. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service in demanding the amount. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into

-5-

evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence.

7. On the other hand the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. R1 along with documents Ex. R2 and Ex. R3 and closed their evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts as mentioned in the complaint. The counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the facts as mentioned in the written statement.

8. In this case, the complainant had been paying amount to the opposite parties from time to time since 1983 and had slept over the matter for the last over 27 years and now when the opposite parties demanded the above amount at the rate of Rs.1,70,000/- per marla for an area measuring 32.43 Square yards which is alleged to be excess, then the complainant has filed the present complaint.

9. The prayer of the complainant is that he should be allowed to deposit rates of the land which was prevalent at the site about 20 years ago. The opposite parties issued many notices to the complainant, but he kept on sleeping for a long time and he never contests all the notices issued to him by the opposite parties and suddenly after more than 20 years, he filed the present complaint in this Forum, where the complaints are disposed of in summary manner. The old intricate and complicate matters cannot be decided in Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum dispose of cases without going into lengthy procedure or without recording complicated evidence. Since the main object for Consumer Forum is to dispense

-6-

equitable justice with speed simplicity and in an inexpensive manner. In this way, the present complaint cannot be adjudicated by this Consumer Forum. Consumer Forums were not bound by the strict rules of pleadings and it is incumbent upon them to provide complete justice to the parties on the basis of material evidence and documents already placed before them. So the present complaint cannot be adjudicated in a simple way because strict rules of pleadings are required to follow to decide such a intricate and complicated matters.

10. To adjudicate the case, we get support from the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case Agnidhar Prasad Vs. M.D. Bihar State Housing Board and another 1994 (1) CLT 419 and 1994 (1) CPJ 93 (NC) VOL 3 SC & NC Consumer Law Cases 92, wherein it is held that-

"Civil Court- Adjudication of complaints required

elaborate evidence relating to the facts necessitating

of witnesses -Consumer Forum not appropriate

Forum for such dispute."

11. In another case titled as Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and others, 1996 (1) CLT 1, 1995 (3) CPR 412, 1995 (6) SC 1651, 1995 (3) CPJ 1, 1996 AIR (SC) 550, VOL 5 SC & NC Consumer Law Case-1 wherein it is held that-

"Civil Court-Complainant issues-Held that in

complaints involving complicated issues requiring

recording of evidence of expert, the complainant

can be asked to approach

-7-

the civil court for appropriate relief which

prescribes that the provisions of the Act shall be

in addition to an not in derogation of the

provisions of any other law for the time being

in force, preserves the right of the of the

consumer to approach the civil court for

necessary relief."

In other cases 2991 CPC 1 applicable, Chaman Lal Grover Vs. Area General Manager, New Bank of India, 1995 (2) CLT 242 (NC), 1993 (3) CPR 558, 1993 (3) CPC 290 (NC), 1994 (1) CPC 389 VOL 3 SC & NC Consumer Law Cases 893, wherein it is held that-

"Civil Court- Complicated issues- The intricate and highly disputed questions of fact are involved in the complaint which requires lengthy full scale trial and examination of numerous interest. Held that the proper Forum is the civil court."

So in view of the above mentioned discussion, we are of the view that it will not be proper to adjudicate the present complaint in the present form because it shall not be possible for this Forum to record lengthy witnesses, their examinations in chief and cross-examination in view of the law laid down above. We, therefore, dispose of the complaint accordingly with no order as to costs and the parties are at liberty to approach the proper Forum for redressal of their grievances.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated: Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

6.5.2010 Member Member President