3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.                                Respondents/Opposite Parties

Sh. Ashwani Kumar son of Shr. Raj Kumar, resident of H.No.594-E, Type II, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala (Punjab).

                                                Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

------------------------------------------------------------------   

Sh. Nashib Singh s/o Sh. Rajpal Singh of H.No.443, VPO, Mauli Jagran (UT Chandigarh).

                                                 Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Opposite Parties           

Sh. Jit Singh Sandhu son of late Sh. Hazara Singh, resident of H.No.58/2, Anand Vihar, Nanhera Road, P.O. Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana)

                                                Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

-------------------------------------------------------------------  

Sh. Anoop Kumar son of Sh. Jagdish Ram r/o H.No.1060, Mohalla Miran Malli, Derabasi (Distt. Mohali).

                                                Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:  Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the  appellant.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                This order shall dispose of the aforesaid six First Appeal Nos.525 of 2013, titled as Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization,  526 of 2013, titled as Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization, 527 of 2013, titled as Sh. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization, 528 of 2013, titled as Sh. Nashib Singh Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization, 529 of 2013, titled as Sh. Jit Singh Sandhu Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization, and 530 of 2013, titled as Sh. Anoop Kumar Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization, arising out of the common order dated 30.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaints No.151, 152, 153, 155, 156 and 184 of 2013, filed by the complainants (now appellants).

2.             The facts, as contained in Consumer Complaint No.151 of 2013, titled as Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization & Ors. were that, in the year, 2008 the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (hereinafter referred to as IRWO) launched a housing scheme at VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab).  Since the price fixed for the apartments by the IRWO was very high, therefore, nobody applied for the same.  Thereafter, the IRWO floated another scheme in July 2010 (namely reopened Railway Group Housing Scheme 2010) for allotment of flats in Rail Vihar at VIP Road, Zirakpur (Punjab) near Chandigarh   Phase-1.  According to the scheme, three types of flats were to be allotted.

3.             The complainant applied for the allotment, of a flat of Type-Z-III category, Phase-1 vide his application dated 22.9.2010. In response to the said letter, he was allotted a type III dwelling unit, vide allotment letter dated 07.03.2011 (Annexure C-2), for a price of Rs.26.18 lacs, which was to be paid in installments.  The complainant paid the installments towards the price of the said flat, as and when, the same fell due. In total he paid a sum of Rs.21.00 lacs i.e. 80% of the price of the flat. The IRWO had assured, to deliver possession of the flat upto December 2012, but, on the other hand, it even failed, to start the construction.

4.             It was stated that the complainant received letter dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure C-6) whereby, the price of the flats was increased to tune of Rs.6.77 lacs.  The complainant, and other allottees of dwelling units in Phase-1, represented vide letter dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure C-7), against the enhancement of price of the dwelling units.  The Opposite Parties/Respondents, sent their reply, vide letter dated 5.3.2013 (Annexure C-8), explaining the reasons for increase in the price of flats. It was further stated that the reply sent by the Opposite Parties, for increase in the price of flats, was not satisfactory. The Opposite Parties were requested, to withdraw the illegal demand of increase in the price of the flats, raised vide the aforesaid memo, but to no avail.

5.             Consumer Complaint No.184 of 2013 titled as Sh. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization & Ors., In this complaint, the complainant was allotted  Type II flat, the price whereof was 15.59 lacs + Service-tax @2.575% + EC. The price of this flat was also increased and demand of a sum of Rs.4.05 lacs was raised vide Annexure C-6, but despite request, the same was not withdrawn.

6.             Consumer Complaint No.151 of 2013 titled as Sh. Nashib Singh Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization & Ors., In this complaint, the complainant was allotted  Type II flat, the price whereof was 15.59 lacs + Service-tax @2.575% + EC. The price of this flat was also increased and demand of a sum of Rs.4.05 lacs was raised vide Annexure C-6, but despite request the same was not withdrawn.

7.             Consumer Complaint No.156 of 2013 titled as Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization & Ors.,   In this complaint, the complainant was allotted Type II flat, the price whereof was 15.59 lacs + Service-tax @2.575% + EC The price of this flat was also increased and demand of a sum of Rs.4.05 lacs was raised vide Annexure C-6, but despite request the same was not withdrawn.

8.             Consumer Complaint No.152 of 2013 titled as Sh. Jit Singh Sandhu Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization & Ors., In this complaint, the complainant was allotted  Type II flat, the price whereof was 15.59 lacs + Service-tax @2.575% + EC. The price of this flat was also increased and demand of a sum of Rs.4.05 lacs was raised vide Annexure C-6, but despite request the same was not withdrawn.

9.             Consumer Complaint No.153 of 2013 titled as Sh. Anoop Kumar Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization & Ors., In this complaint, the complainant was allotted  Type III flat, the price whereof 26.18 lacs + Service tax @2.575%+ EC @10.5% p.a. The price of this flat was also increased and demand of sum of Rs.6.77 lacs was raised vide Annexure C-6, but despite request the same was not withdrawn.

10.          It was further stated that the said demand of increased price, was illegal and arbitrary. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), referred to above were filed, claiming various reliefs.

11.          The Opposite Parties, in all these complaints, filed their written versions, wherein they pleaded that the District Forum at Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was admitted that the Opposite Parties, launched a scheme referred to above, and the complainants were allotted the flats, indicated hereinbefore. It was denied, that the IRWO had assured to deliver the possession by December 2012. It was stated that the progress of work, and changes, if any, were intimated to the complainants.  It was further stated that the price given in the brochure was purely tentative, and as per IRWO’s Rules, the allottees had to pay the increased cost of the dwelling unit. It was admitted that the letter dated 08.01.2013, was issued demanding the increased price of the flats, from the complainants. It was further stated that in Annexure C-6 letter dated 08.01.2013, the reasons were mentioned, as to why there was increase in the cost/price of the flats. It was further stated that the demand raised by the Opposite Parties, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties by not withdrawing the memo dated 08.01.2013, demanding the increased price of the flats, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

12.          The Parties led evidence, in support of their cases.

13.          After hearing the Counsel for the complainants, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the price of the flats, which was originally mentioned in the brochures, was only tentative and not the final and hence the Opposite Parties, were right in increasing the same, keeping in view the various factors, mentioned in Annexure C-6.

14.          Ultimately, the aforesaid complaints, were dismissed by the District Forum, as indicated in para No.1 of the instant order.

15.          Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid appeals, were filed by the appellants/complainants.    

16.          We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/complainants, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

17.          The Counsel for the appellants/complainants, submitted that the increase in the price of flats, demanded by the Opposite Parties, vide Annexure C-6 was wholly and completely arbitrary and illegal. He further submitted that once the price was originally quoted, in respect of the flats, which were booked by the complainants, and allotted to them, the same could not be raised by the Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that, no doubt, the contractor to whom the work of construction was allotted earlier, left the same, and contract was given to the other contractor. It was further submitted that even, as per the contract, given to the second contractor and the price quoted by him, for such construction was not commensurate with the increased price demanded from the complainants by the Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further submitted that the District Forum wrongly came to the conclusion that the demand raised by the Opposite Parties, vide Annexure C-6 was neither arbitrary nor illegal. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal is liable to be set aside.

18.          First coming to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, it may be stated here that a specific objection was taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written versions, with regard to the same, but it was not decided by it. However, it is evident from Annexure C-20, copy of the receipt vide which a sum of Rs.37,500/- was deposited by the complainant, towards the part price of the flat, that the same was issued by the General Manager of Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Chandigarh, as stamp of his office, in photo impression is affixed thereon. Even vide the receipts, copies whereof, are at pages 88 and 89 dated 07.07.2011 and 07.09.2011 Rs.3,46,925/- and Rs.3,46,825/- respectively, were deposited at Chandigarh. Both these receipts bear the photo impression, of the stamp of the office of the General Manager of Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Chandigarh. Same is the position, in respect of other complaints. Thus, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. As such, the District Forum at Chandigarh, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Such an objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written versions, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

19.          The principal question, which requires determination, is as to whether, the price which was quoted at the time of booking, and allotment of flats, in favour of the complainants, was final or tentative, and whether, the Opposite Parties, were legally entitled to increase the same, keeping in view, the various factors. Annexure C-1, is a copy of the brochure of reopened Railway Group Housing Scheme 2010, for allotment of flats, in Rail Vihar at VIP Road, Zirakpur (Punjab) near Chandigarh   Phase-1, in which the flats were allotted to the complainants. It is evident from condition No.6.1 of this brochure, that the area of the flats, and the cost thereof, were only tentative. As per Note 3, appended under condition No.6.1 of the brochure, it was in clear-cut terms, mentioned as under:-

“The costs given in the table above are purely tentative based on current prices and may increase depending on escalation in labour and material cost, as well as alterations in design and specifications or any other unforeseen reasons. Actual cost would be payable by Allottees. In addition, Equilisation Charges have to be paid as per Annexure-III. Equilisation charges are to bring you at par with those joined the scheme earlier.”

20.         Not only this, condition No.9.5 of the brochure aforesaid, also reads as under:-

“The Project accounts may not be closed at the time of occupation of houses by the allottees. The last instalment payment shall, therefore, be considered tentative. As and when the accounts are closed, the allottees will be advised of the final actual cost and the difference between the final actual cost and the cost recovered will be payable by the allottees concerned.”

In Note 1 of the payment schedule, placed on the record, it was, in clear-cut terms mentioned, that the cost given in the table, was purely tentative, and it may increase depending upon the labour and material costs, as well as, due to alteration in specifications, or any other unforeseen reasons, and actual cost would be payable. Annexure C-2 is the letter dated 07.03.2011, vide which the complainants were allotted the flats, in which it was also mentioned in clear-cut terms that tentative cost of type III dwelling unit was 26,18000/- + service tax @ 2.575% + EC @10.5% p.a. Similarly tentative cost in respect of Z type II dwelling unit was 15.59 lacs + Service-tax + EC. Not only this, the complainants also appended their signatures, on the declaration, attached with the “application form for booking” whereby, they undertook that they would abide by all the Rules, and instructions that may be issued by the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation. They also in clear-cut terms stated that they have read the information in the brochure, and fully understood the contents thereof. Under these circumstances, the terms and conditions of the brochure, the allotment letters, and the payment schedule, were binding on the parties, and they could not wriggle out of the same. Since the price, on which the complainants were originally allotted the flats, was only tentative, they were liable to pay the increased price demanded from them, vide the memo, in question. The Opposite Parties, were, thus, neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

21.                Not only this, even in Annexure C-6, copy of the memo 08.01.2013, which was sent to the complainants, the reasons were mentioned, as to why the necessity of increasing the price of the units, was felt. The reasons spelt out, in the memo Annexure C-6, for increasing the price are as under:-

“You may be aware that IRWO purchased 7.463 acres of land for the project at Zirakpur near Chandigarh in August 2008. For this loan was arranged from HUDCO. The plans of the project were submitted to Zirakpur Municipal Council for approval in May 2009 and were approved by them in March 2010.

Tender for construction of Phase I work was accepted in July, 2010. Due to slow progress of work the contract has been terminated in August 20120 Now new contract has been awarded in October 2012 for complete project and the work is in progress.

In the meantime we reopened the scheme for Phase II, allowing other government officials & blood relations of IRWO Members also to apply.

Since the time land was procured and the scheme was opened, market has been very volatile, with the result there has been substantial increase in price of steel, cement, bricks, other building materials and labour charges. Based on the estimate of Ph-II construction cost revised estimate has been prepared by PH-I. Overall the increase in cost of different types of dwelling units is as indicated below:-

One open car parking is compulsory for each DU and would require payment of Rs.75,000/- in addition to above. The above revised cost includes the interest paid on amount taken on loan for the purchase of the land.

Average escalation has been included in the above costs. However, it may change depending upon Market fluctuations. Subsidy for EWS houses has not been included in the above costs, since Municipal Council Zirakpur has not taken in any decision on it as yet. The tenders for external electrification, fire-fighting scheme, lifts and sewage treatment plant are yet to be issued. Their assessed costs have been included in the estimate. Scheme for external electrification has been submitted to Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala for approval.

On Demand of some allotees, and the fact that there are G+7 building, it has been decided to provide additional lift in each block of Type III and Type IV. The drawings have been revised on incorporate the additional lift. The revised plans have been got approved from Municipal Council Zirakpur. The unit area for Type III and Type IV will increase due to provision of additional lift. However, this will involve proportionate additional cost both for Phase-I & Phase-II.

The above costs are intimated in advance to you so that you can arrange additional funds. The revised schedule of payment is being advised to you separately through demand letter.”

Since the price of flats, was increased for the reasons, mentioned in Annexure C-6, referred to above, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

22.        No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.

23.                In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The same is liable to be upheld.

24.                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

25.                Certified copy of the impugned order be placed in each of the appeal files.

26.                Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

27.                The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

December 11, 2013

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

GP

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.525 of 2013)

Argued by: Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.         

Dated the 11^th  day of December  2013

ORDER

              Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal alongwith FA No.526 of 2013, FA No.527 of 2013, FA No.528 of 2013, FA No.529 of 2013 and FA No.530 of 2013 has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

Sd/-                                          Sd/-

GP

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Anil Kumar son of Sh. Geeta Ram, H.No.T-53-C Type III, Old Railway Colony, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana).

                                                Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.                                Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:   Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the  appellant.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No 525 of 2013, titled ‘Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation & Ors., vide which this appeal has also been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

              Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

December 11, 2013

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

GP

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Ashwani Kumar son of Shr. Raj Kumar, resident of H.No.594-E, Type II, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala (Punjab).

                                                Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:   Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the  appellant.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No 525 of 2013, titled ‘Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation & Ors., vide which this appeal has also been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

              Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

December 11, 2013

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

GP

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Nashib Singh s/o Sh. Rajpal Singh of H.No.443, VPO, Mauli Jagran (UT Chandigarh).

                                                Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Opposite Parties       

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:    Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the  appellant.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No 525 of 2013, titled ‘Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation & Ors., vide which this appeal has also been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

              Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

December 11, 2013

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

GP

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Jit Singh Sandhu son of late Sh. Hazara Singh, resident of H.No.58/2, Anand Vihar, Nanhera Road, P.O. Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana)

                                                Appellant/Complainant  

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:    Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the  appellant.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No 525 of 2013,  titled ‘Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation & Ors., vide which this appeal has also been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

              Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

December 11, 2013

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

GP

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Anoop Kumar son of Sh. Jagdish Ram r/o H.No.1060, Mohalla Miran Malli, Derabasi (Distt. Mohali).

                                                       Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.    Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Railway Complex, Shivaji Bridge (Behind Shankar Market), New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director;

2.    General Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

3.    Chief Project Manager, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, Zonal Office, C/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Complex, Northern Railway, Chandigarh.

     Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:    Sh. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No 525 of 2013,  titled ‘Sh. Puneet Narang Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation & Ors., vide which this appeal has also been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

              Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

December 11, 2013

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

GP