BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.173 of 2017
Date of Instt. 01.06.2017
Date of Decision: 18.03.2019
1. Suvikram Jyoti s/o Late Shri D. D. Jyoti R/o 621, Sector-16, Panchkula, through Special Power of Attorney Sh. Rajiv Bansal s/o Sh. Krishan Paul Bansal R/o 25-A, New Prem Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar.
2. (a). Krishna Jyoti widow of Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti R/o N.C. 148, Kot Kishan Chand, Jalandhar.
(b). Vibha Sharda D/o Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti R/o H. No.52-A/1, Deen Dayal Upadhya Nagar, Jalandhar.
(c). Vidhur Jyoti s/o Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti R/o 28/4-A, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon.
(d). Abha Prashar D/o Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti R/o 159, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi.
All (a to d) through their General Power of Attorney Sh. Suvikram Jyoti s/o Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti R/o 621, Sector-16, Panchkula.
..........Complainants
Versus
1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Near Sky Lark Hotel, Jalandhar, Through its Chairman.
2. Local Bodies Department, Punjab, Secretariat, through its Director, Chandigarh. (Not Summoned)
3. Local Bodies Department, Punjab, Secretariat, through its Secratary, Chandigarh. (Not Summoned)
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Ajay Bansal, Adv Counsel for the Complainants.
Sh. Sandeep Dhir, Adv Counsel for the OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the act of government authority i.e. JIT is a classical example, taking undue advantage of the poor consumers by acquiring their respective lands and thereafter, not giving legal and vacant possession of the plots allocated to them under the Local Displaced Person Quota.
2. The complainant have been swindled for 25% of the total amount deposited to the OP/JIT by the complainant's deceased father Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti, against the plot No.142-143, allocated to him by the JIT, Jalandhar, vide Memo No.JIT/648 dated 15.06.2009. The Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti had deposited 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs.2,24,750/- each against the aforementioned plots, as prescribed in the schedule, vide Serial No.34459/Receipt No.32778 & Serial No.34458/Receipt No.32777. Both dated 14.07.2009, but the legal and vacant possession of the aforesaid plots has still not been handed over to the legal heirs of Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti. The present case is a fit case, where JIT, Jalandhar, instead of handing over the legal and vacant possession of the plot No.142-143 to the deceased allottee during his life time and after the death of the allottee, the same has still not been handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, this Forum should necessarily take a serious view, and make this case as an example which will discourage any such misuse/diversion of powers and funds by the government authorities at the cost of helpless consumers in future. The complainants are consumers within the meaning of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The present complaint is filed by Mr. Rajiv Bansal S/o Mr. Krishan Paul Bansal R/o 25-A, New Prem Nagar Sodal Road, Jalandhar, who is the Special Power of Attorney Holder of Sh. Suvikram Jyoti S/o Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti (General Power of Attorney of the other legal heirs of Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti. Copy of the Special Power of Attorney dated 27.02.2017 is placed on the file. The OP is an Improvement Trust that develop the colonies as per the Rules and Regulations of the Trust, having its office at Jalandhar, G. T. Road, Jalandhar, Punjab.
3. The present complaint is being filed under Section 21 read with Section 2(g) and 2(r) and all other enabling provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The facts giving rise to the present complaint are as under:-
(a) That the Plots No.142 and 143 (measuring 250 sq. yards each) as stated in subject cited above were originally allotted in the name of Sh. D. D. Jyoti (now deceased) S/o late Sh. Dhrit Ram Jyoti under Local Displaced Person Quota (L.D.P. QuotA) vide Memo No.JIT/648 dated 15.06.2009. It is submitted that Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti deposited 25% cost amount i.e. Rs.2,24,750/- each against the said plots, as prescribed in the schedule, vide Serial No.34459/Receipt No.32778 and Serial No.34458/Receipt No.32777, both dated 14.07.2009.
(b). That Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti deposited two installments: (I) Rs.1,51,125/- vide Demand Draft No.089255 dated 30.11.2009 and (ii) Rs.1,51,125/- vide Demand Draft/Pay Order No:089256 dated 30.11.2009, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar, in the office of the JIT, Jalandhar, on 01.12.2009.
(c). That Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti, vide letter dated 01.12.2009, submitted two drafts of Rs.1,51,125/- each against aforementioned two plots as second installments. Copy of the letter dated 01.12.2009 along with draft No.089255 for dated 30.11.2009 and draft No.089256 dated 30.11.2009 for Rs.1,51,125/- each are annexed herewith as Annexure-6 (Colly).
(d). That thereafter, Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti received an official letter No.JIT/7007 dated 17.12.2009, from the office of JIT, Jalandhar with under-mentioned (translated) remarks:
“You are hereby informed that the Draft No.089255 dated 30.11.2009 amounting to Rs.1,51,125/- and Draft No.089256 dated 30.11.2009 amounting to Rs.1,51,125, sent by you are returned in original and you are also informed that your case is pending under enquiry before the Government. After the completion of the enquiry, further action will be taken.”
Copy of the letter No.JIT/7007 dated 17.12.2009 along with the translated copy of the same, is annexed herewith as Annexure-7.
(e). That on 12.01.2011, Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti wrote a letter to the OP No.1 to accept the installments and to handover the legal and vacant physical possession of both the plots No.142 and 143 as allotted by the office of the JIT, vide letter Memo No.JIT/648 dated 15.06.2009 and to get an update on the outcome of the inquiry as it had been more than one year and the Late Mr. D. D. Jyoti had not received any further update about his plots from the opposite. Copy of the letter dated 12.01.2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure-8.
(f). That Sh. D. D. Jyoti died on 03.10.2014. Copy of Death Certificate No.54961/10 dated 13.10.2014, issued by the office of the Local Registrar, Birth and Deaths Municipal Corporation Jalandhar is annexed herewith as Annexure-9.
(g). After the death of Sh. D. D. Jyoti, complainants namely: (i) Smt. Krishna Jyoti widow of Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti, (ii). Sh. Vidur Jyoti S/o Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti, (iii) Sh. Suvikram Jyoti S/o Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti, (iv) Mrs. Abha Prashar (Daughter of Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti) and wife of Sh. Lalit Mohan Prahsar and (v) Vibha Sharda (Dauther of Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti and W/o Sh. Ram Raksh Paul Sharda became his true and being legal heir, and resultantly stepped into the shoes of Late Sh. D. D. Jyoti and inherited the absolute and undisputed legal ownership rights with 1/5th share each in both the plots bearing No.142 and 143 in the JIT 94.5 Acres Development Scheme known as Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar.
4. That till Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti was alive, he relentlessly tried his hardest to deposit the balance amounts of the plots with the office of the OP, but the OP No.1 turned down his request every time. Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti, also on numerous occasions, visited the office of the OP No.1 and requested to handover the vacant physical possession of both the plots No.142 and 143 (as allotted to him under LDP Quota) vide letter Memo No.JIT/648 dated 15.06.2009. But instead of giving any concrete answer, the OP No.1 caused mental and physical harassment to Dr. D. D. Jyoti with its non-cooperating, careless, rude and arrogant behaviour. The legal heirs of late Sh. D. D. Jyoti i.e. through present complainants, vide letter dated 14.03.2017 asked the OP No.1 about the update upon the status of the plot No.142-143, but the officials of the OP No.1 did not bother to reply to the said letter. That the complainants, aggrieved from the behaviour and attitude of the OP No.1, served another legal notice dated 28.04.2017 upon OPs No.2 and 3, but even the OPs did nto bother to respond the legal notice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with a the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to receive the balance amount and handover the physical, legal and vacant possession of the plot No.142 and 143 and further OPs be directed to pay compensation to the complainant towards mental harassment and agony to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and further OPs be directed to Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and further alleged that the complainant is trying to mislead this Forum. The true facts are that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case “Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh” 1999(1) PLJ 340 has categorically passed an order that definition of local displaced person confined to a person whose lands acquired for a scheme to execute under Damaged Areas Act 1951 and it is not applicable to any other scheme. OP/JIT vide its letters bearing JIT/385 dated 23.04.2010 and JIT/2410 dated 20.12.2011 has written to Chief Secretary, Punjab Government to take opinion of law officer of Punjab Government on above mentioned Supreme Court of India Judgment and pass necessary orders to JIT. Copy of both letters mentioned are enclosed here with and further took a plea that as per Government notification bearing Memo No.5/402/97-3LGII/2417 dated 22.02.1999 the person can only be proved legal heir only on the production of registered Will or Legal Heir Certificate from DC concerned of the Succession Certificate or order of Court or Family Settlement forming part of Decree. The complainant have failed to produce either of the above said documents to OP i.e. JIT. It is further alleged that the complaint is false, frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed and further averred that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and is trying to mislead the Forum and further alleged that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits, Para No.2 and 3 admitted as a matter of record, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Bansal as Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and then closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
8. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. Most of the facts of the complaint are not controverted or denied by the OP. Simply, the case of the complainant to the extent that two plots bearing No.142-143 were allotted to the complainant under the Local Displaced Person Quota and even admittedly, allotment letter dated 15.06.2009 Ex.C-4 was also issued to the father of the complainant namely Dr. D. D. Jyoti and as per direction given in the said allotment letter, the complainant has admittedly deposited the 1/4th amount of Rs.2,24,750/- and further as per schedule of payment described in the allotment letter, the complainant submitted two drafts for an amount of Rs.1,51,125/- each dated 30.11.2009, but both the draft has been returned by the OP to the complainant with the remarks that the case of the complainant is pending under enquiry before the Government and after the completion of the enquiry further action will be taken, the said letter whereby both the draft was returned to the complainant is available on the file Ex.C-7 dated 17.12.2009 and thereafter, the case of the complainant was referred to the Government by the OP, vide letter dated 22.05.2009 Ex.OP-1 and its reminder was again given by the OP on 20.12.2011 to the Government and copy of the Letter is Ex.OP-2. Since 2009, the case of the complainant for enquiy is lying deaf ear with the Government, despite numerous visits of the original allottee deceased Dr. D. D. Jyoti and his LR, the OP did not allow the complainant to deposit the remaining amount, regarding that the original allottee also wrote a letter to the OP for allowing to deposit the remaining amount and vacant possession of the plot be delivered to the complainant that letter is available on the file Ex.C-8, but no reply has been given by the OP till today rather the OP has also brought on the file un-exhibited letter dated 30.07.2018, whereby a reminder was given to the Government for deciding the case of the complainant, which is pending for enquiry, but even thereafter no action has been taken by the OP and as such, it is established on the file that, not deciding the case of the complainant, pending under enquiry, is tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly, we reached to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and thus, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to receive the balance amount and handover the physical, legal and vacant possession of the Plot No.142-143 to the LR of the deceased allottee Late Dr. D. D. Jyoti and after allotment as well as delivery of the possession to the complainants, all the LRs will apply to the Improvement Trust for transfer of the plot, the said application will be filed by the LR of the allottee according to the instruction of the Government as alleged by the OP i.e. letter dated 22.02.1999 Ex.OP-3 and then OP will transfer both the plots in the name of the LR according to rules and instructions issued by the Government as envisaged in the aforesaid letter. Further, the OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and agony and further OP is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
18.03.2019 Member President
