Haryana

StateCommission

A/214/2015

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIDEV SAINI - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      214 of 2015

Date of Institution:      05.03.2015 

Date of Decision :       22.09.2015

M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Madan Dogra).

Also at:

Parsvnath City, Sector-8, GT Road, Sonepat, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Jaidev Saini s/o Sh. Ram Bhaj Saini, Resident of H.No.244, Ward No.2, Sainipura, Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri A. S. Khara, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Jawahar Narang, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated December 9^th, 2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘the District Forum’), Sonepat

2.      Jaidev Saini-complainant-respondent, applied for allotment of plot measuring 50 square yards under Economically Weaker Section (for short ‘EWS’) under the scheme launched by opposite party for Below Poverty Line (BPL) Card holders, vide application No.509 dated January 24^th, 2009. He remained successful in the draw of lots held on November 15^th, 2010. While verifying the entitlement for allotment of plots under the scheme, out of total 70 applicants, the District Town Planner (DTP) found 19 persons including the complainant, not eligible for plots under EWS scheme, hence, his application was rejected and the sum of Rs.2990/- deposited by him alongwith the application money was refunded vide cheque No.035690 dated 13.09.2012. (Annexure A-5)

3.      Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the opposite party as under:-

“….we hereby direct the respondent to withdraw the letter dated 15.9.2012, to consider the application of the complainant under EWS category, to allot the plot in the name of the complainant as per draw dated 15.11.2010. The respondent is also directed to accept the entire payment from the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its due including the amount of Rs.2990/- from the complainant.”

5.      Admittedly, the respondent was not eligible for the plot under the scheme for ‘EWS’ because he did not fall under the category of ‘BPL’. Inspite of that the District Forum issued direction to the opposite party to allot plot in the name of the complainant.

6.      A similar situated case was decided by this Commission in First Appeal No.215 of 2014, Parsvnath Developers Limited vs. Sheela’ vide order dated January 12^th, 2015, whereby complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

7.      There is nothing on the record to show that the complainant was eligible for plot under EWS scheme. In view of letter dated 24.10.2011 of the office of District Town Planner, upon verification the complainant was not found eligible, the opposite party cancelled the allotment. The complainant has not challenged the report of District Town Planner regarding verification of eligibility or that report is wrong. District Forum has failed to appreciate the controversy, hence the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 22.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL