Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/246

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

L.C.Bector adv.

17 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                      C.C. No:246 of 13.04.2015

                                                                      Date of Decision:17.04.2015

Gurcharan Singh aged about 65 years son of Sh.Maan Singh resident of 209, N.F.Colony, C/o 187-B, Jamna Enclave, Panipat.

Complainant

Versus 

Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman.

                   Opposite party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:               Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.                       

Ms.Babita, Member.     

         

Present:      Sh.L.C.Bector, Advocate for complainant.

 

                          ORDER 

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that Sh.Gurcharan Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Op’) with the brief averments that in the year 1982, the OP had invited the applications for the allotment of the plots under the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.950/- as advance money for the allotment of the plot measuring 125 sq.yards situated at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. The complainant many times approached the OP for knowing about the result of the abovesaid allotment through many letters, but the OP was kept on lingering the matter on one or the other pretext as neither the OP had given any reply to any of the letters which were sent by the complainant to the OP nor allotted the said plot in the name of the complainant. On 23.8.2014, the complainant applied to the OP under the Right to Information Act for seeking the status of the allotment of the complainant and the complainant received a letter dated 21.11.2014 bearing mp/LIT/RTI/10696 and the complainant came to know that after the payment of Rs.950/-, on 10.9.1999, the OP conducted the allotment of the plots under the said scheme of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme and in the said allotment, the complainant got the abovesaid plot No.1005-G, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana being successful drawer of the allotment conducted by the OP, but no information was ever given to the complainant in this regard that the abovesaid plot has been allotted to the complainant and the OP also admits that the abovesaid plot has been allotted to the complainant in the said draw and the same is still lying vacant. The complainant also came to know that the Chief Secretary, Government of Local Bodies, Chandigarh has also directed the OP vide letter dated 13.6.2012 bearing NO.3938 to allot the abovesaid plot to the complainant as per the present collector rate, to which, the complainant was agreed to make the payment as per the order of the Chief Secretary, but in spite of this, no allotment has been made to the complainant. The complainant many times visited the office of OP and despite sending the letters to the OP for knowing about the allotment of the said plot but with no result. The OP has thus cheated the complainant, which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has placed on record certain documents i.e. copy of report of Ludhiana Improvement Trust Under RTI Act, dated 21.11.2014, copy of letter No.7920 dated 4.8.2000 issued by Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, vide which, it was informed qua the cancellation of the allotted plots under the 475 Acre Scheme, copy of letter dated 6.11.2006 written by the complainant to Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, vide which, request was made by the complainant to deposit the remaining amount and to allot the plot.

3.                Perusal of the record reveals that there are specific allegations of the complainant that in the year 1982, the OP had invited the applications for the allotment of the plots under the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme and the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.950/- as advance money for the allotment of the plot and thereafter, he approached many times to the OP for knowing about the result of the allotment and on 23.8.2014, the complainant applied to the OP under the RTI Act qua the status of allotment. However, OP did not give any proper reply to the letters written by the complainant. Further, perusal of the documents which the complainant has placed on record that the complainant had written a letter on 6.11.2006 to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, vide which, he had made a request to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to send the allotment letter and he should be permitted to deposit the remaining amount. Further, the complainant has placed on record copy of Request Slip No.27405 dated 3.3.2010 and another copy of letter dated 26.5.2011 written by the complainant to Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, vide which, the complainant had made a request to issue the allotment letter qua plot No.1005-G, 125 Sq.yards scheme 475 Acre, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana and to deposit the remaining amount. Further, the complainant has placed on record copy of letter No.7920 dated 4.8.2000, vide which, it was informed qua the cancellation of the allotted plots under the 475 Acre Scheme including the plot of the complainant.

4.                From the above documents, it appears that the complainant was well aware about the allotment of the plot in question in his favour by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and also aware about the order of cancellation of the allotment of the plots which was passed by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana in the year 2000. So, the cause of action had accrued to the complainant firstly, in the year 2000 when the allotment of the plot was cancelled and thereafter, in the year 2006, when the request was made by the complainant for the issuance of the allotment letter vide his letter dated 6.11.2006 and again, cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2010, when the request was made for issuance of allotment letter and deposit of remaining amount and thereafter, again on 2011 when the request was made vide his letter dated 26.5.2011. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 13.4.2015 but as per the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant was required to file the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action accrued in his favour. As such, complaint appears to be time barred. 

5.                Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides the period of Limitation Period, which describes as under:-

i)The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

6.                Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as State Bank of India vs.M/s.B.S.Agriculture Industries (I)-(2009) CPJ-481, wherein, it was held that the provisions of Section 24-A are peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. That the expression, shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. That the Consumer Fora’s were debarred from entertaining any complaint, which was beyond the period of limitation. Para -8 of the said judgment reads as under:-

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘ shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”   

7.                From the perusal of the above said provisions, it is clear that the present complaint is clearly time barred. Furthermore, the complainant has also not moved any application for condonation of delay explaining his sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation and further, he has not assigned any sufficient or specific reasons in the complaint for not filing the present complaint within time.

8.                Further, the complainant has alleged in the complaint that OP has cheated the complainant. It is a well settled principle of law that in order to record the findings qua the questions/issues of cheating and fraud, an elaborate evidence is required and it needs a full trial by providing the opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence by way of examination and cross-examination of their witnesses which is not possible in the summary proceedings and same can only be possible before the Civil Courts. So, complaint does not appear to be maintainable before this Forum due to the lack of jurisdiction.

9.                So, in view of the above discussion, we do not admit the complaint of the complaint being not maintainable and being time barred. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

             (Babita)                       (Sat Paul Garg)          (R.L.Ahuja)

              Member                        Member                     President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:17.04.2015

(Gurpreet Sharma)