BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.191 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Instt. 01.05.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 23.10.2019

Satpaul Jindal, aged about 71 years S/o Sh. Ram Lal R/o Sudesh Niwas, 3-Golden Colony, Phase-II, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt., Punjab, presently residing at:181-Wazir Singh Enclave, Ladhewali, Jalandhar, Punjab.

                                                                             ..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman/CEO (Executive Officer).

2.       Director, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3.       The State of Punjab, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab, Chandigarh.

                                                                           ….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh              (President)

                              Smt. Jyotsna                      (Member)

Present:        Sh. Balwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                             Sh. M. S. Sood, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

                   OPs No.2 and 3 withdrawn.

Order

                             Karnail Singh (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is a Statutory Body under the provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 for development and improvement of the city and is working under direct supervision and control of OP No.2. Both the OPs No.1 and 2 fall within the ambit of OP No.3.

2.                That the OP No.1, in the year 2003, carved out a residential scheme i.e. 170 Acre Development Scheme, known as Surya Enclave, Jalandhar and invited applications for the allotment of plots in the said scheme. The complainant being eligible candidate, applied for a plot measuring 250 Sq. Yards, in the prescribed application dated 05.12.2003 and paid a sum of Rs.75,000/-, vide demand draft bearing No.262805 dated 04.12.2003, which is still lying with the OP No.1. On 07.02.2004, draws for the allotment of plots were conducted, wherein the name of complainant was mentioned at Sr. No.8 in the Waiting List of General Category, pertaining to plots measuring 250 Sq. Yards. The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 and made several representations i.e. representations dated 25.01.2006, 08.06.2006, 06.07.2006, 30.08.2007, 05.11.2007, 16.04.2008, 21.05.2008, 18.10.2008 etc. for knowing the status of the said waiting list. Accordingly, OP No.1, vide its letter dated 24.08.2006 informed the complainant that finalization of the case of waiting list of 250 Sq. Yards in general category is under consideration and as and when a decision is taken, the complainant will be informed accordingly.

3.                That the OPs were moving in the matter in a pick and choose manner and complainant was being deprived off his genuine claim despite of availability of plots in the said scheme. Aggrieved from this, the complainant preferred a Civil Writ Petition against the OPs, vide CWP No.20556 of 2010, before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. In the said CWP, Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Advocate, the counsel for OP No.1 admitted that the name of complainant appears at Sr. No.8 in the waiting list and plots have allotted upto Sr. No.6 and further stated that as and when a plot is available, it would be allotted to the petitioner i.e. Satpaul Jindal Complainant as per his turn in the waiting list. Accordingly, the said CWP was disposed of, vide order dated 31.05.2012, by the Court of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Bhalla and Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, wherein it was directed to the OP No.1 that as and when a plot is available, it shall be allotted to the petitioner, in accordance with the waiting list, within three months.

4.                That the complainant made various queries from the office of OP No.1, but no satisfactory response was given by the OP No.1 to the complainant. Then the complainant made a written representation before the OP No.1, vide letter dated 27.08.2012, to enquire about the status of waiting list. In response to the said letter, OP No.1, vide its letter bearing No.JIT6393 dated 05.10.2012 informed the complainant that the name of the complainant is at Sr. No.8, whereas a case pertaining to Mr. Sarwan Singh, whose name is at Sr. No.7 of the general waiting list, is pending before Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi and an appeal/revision petition has been field by the OP No.1 and no action can be taken in the matter of complainant till the final decision of the said appeal/revision. The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, vide its Order dated 31.07.2017, was pleased to dismiss the appeal/revision petition of OPs and upheld the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, whereby the OPs were directed to allot a similar plot of the same value in the said 170 Acres Scheme immediately along with other reliefs to Sarwan Singh, whose name was at Sr. No.7 of the general waiting list. The complainant, after the knowledge of passing of Order dated 25.07.2017 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi visited the office of OP No.1 time and again and requested for the allotment of Plot, as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court, vide its Order dated 31.05.2012 and as per commitment in their letter dated 05.10.2012, but the OPs dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or another. The complainant wrote one letter dated 13.09.2017 to the OP No.1 and same was duly received and acknowledged by the OP No.1 and also sent registered letter dated 29.01.2018 to the office of OP No.1, whereby complainant requested the OP No.1 to admit the genuine claim of the complainant and called upon the OPs to allot him a plot, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide its Order dated 31.05.2012 and as per commitment in their letter dated 05.10.2012, but it has fetched no response from OP No.1.

5.                The OPs with malafide intentions are withholding the allotment of plot to the complainant and dilly delaying the matter on one pretext or the other, which is tantamount to deficiency in service and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to allot a plot measuring 250 Sq. Yrds., in 170 Acre Development Scheme, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar and further, OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

6.                     Complaint against OPs No.2 and 3 was withdrawn by the complainant at a very initial stage, whereas notice of the complaint was given to the OP No.1, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred under the provision of Limitation Act and hence liable to be dismissed on this score only and further averred that the present complaint is barred by the principles of res judicata as the matter has been already decided by the Hon’ble Hight Court of having competent jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the complainant is guilty of laches and delay, hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in housing service by the answering OP and even the complainant is not a consumer and the OP challenges the very admission of the complaint by this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that a scheme was launched by the OP for allotment of the plot and further admitted that the name of the complainant was stand in the waiting list and filing of the Civil Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court is also admitted and whatsoever, direction given by the Hon’ble High Court is also not denied, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

7.                Complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply, whereby reasserted the entire facts as detailed in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

8.                In order to prove his case, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

9.                Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence.

10.              We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

11.              Before imparting with the main controversy, between the parties, we preferred to take a legal issue raised by the OP i.e. the complaint of the complainant is time barred as well as the complaint of the complainant is barred by the principle of res judicata. Firstly, we considered the plea of the OP that the complaint of the complainant is time barred, but in order to give strength to this aspect, the counsel for the OP could not able to make any convincing argument that how the complaint is time barred, because a letter bearing No.6393 dated 05.10.2012 was sent by the officer of the OP No.1 to the complainant, whereby informed that one case of Sarwan Singh, whose name is at Sr. No.7 of the waiting list of General Category, is pending before the Hon’ble State Commission and till the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, no further action can be taken in regard to case of the complainant and accordingly, the complainant has to wait and limitation period will automatically stop during that period and then the case of the said Sarwan Singh was decided by the Hon’ble National Commission and thereafter, the complainant sent a letter to the OP No.1, the same is Ex.C-7 dated 13.09.2017 for allotment of the plot as per rule, being reason the case of the said Sarwan Singh has been disposed of by the Hon’ble National Commission in favour of said Sarwan Singh, but no action was taken by the OP and then the complainant again sent a letter Ex.C-8 dated 29.01.2018. So, the limitation period of the complainant will commence from the date of knowledge of the decision of case Sarwan Singh, which was decided on 31.07.2017 and if we reckoned the period of limitation from 31.07.2017, then the instant complaint which has been filed by the complainant on 01.05.2018 is well within the stipulated period of two years.

12.              Furthermore, we are of the considered opinion that until the case of the complainant is not admitted or denied by the OP, till then the limitation period will remain continue and as such, the complaint of the complainant is well within limitation.

13.              Now, we have to consider whether the principle of res judicata is applicable in the instant case or not, for that purpose, we have gone through the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court decided on 31.05.2012, copy of the same is available on the file Ex.C-5, in the said judgment, the matter in dispute was same and parties were also same and the matter was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court, vide its order dated 31.05.2012 and specific direction was given to the OPs, which is as under:-

“That as and when a plot is available, it shall be allotted to the petitioner, in accordance with waiting list, within three months”

The order of the Hon’ble High Court is crystal clear that the three months time was given to the OP to allot the plot, to the complainant when the same is available, if the plot was not allotted to the complainant on either grounds by the OP, then the remedy with the complainant was only to approach the same Court, where-from he get a relief in regard to the allotment of plot. It is not in dispute that the complainant is also seeking a relief of allotment of same plot regarding that order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court. We find if the order is not obeyed by the OP in letter and spirit, then the remedy with the complainant is only to approach the same Court not to file a fresh complaint like this. We find that the principle of res judicata is apparently applicable in the instant case. So, accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being not maintainable with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. 

14.               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

23.10.2019                            Member                              President