Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/36

Harish Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Dalip Garg

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                      C.C. No:36 of 13.01.2015

                                                                      Date of Decision:27.02.2015

Harish Garg son of Shri Inder Sain Garg, resident of House No.471, Industrial Area-b, Ludhiana through Special Power of Attorney Shri Gurcharan Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of HJ-269, Punjab Housing Board Colony, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus 

 

1.Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its Chairman.

2.Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Executive Officer.

 

                   Opposite parties

 

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.Dalip Garg, 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.Harish Garg through his Special attorney Sh.Gurcharan Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its Chairman. and others (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Ops’) with the brief averments that the complainant applied for allotment of plot measuring 100 sq.yards in the Development Scheme of 475 Acres known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana in the year 1982 alongwith receipt of registration fee of Rs.150/- paid to the OP2 vide receipt No.49119 dated 30.11.1982 and the complainant’s name was registered in the list of persons, to whom, the plots were allotted through draw. The complainant was informed regarding his registration number and he was informed to attend the function of draw of lots of plots in the abovesaid 475 Acre Scheme on 11.2.1985 at 10:00 A.M. The complainant was allotted a Plot No.205-H measuring 100 square yards at the rate of Rs.110/- per square yard by the Ops in the aforesaid scheme vide allotment letter No.LIT/SB/6717 dated 23.4.1985. A list of successful candidates was also displayed at the notice board of the Trust and a Plot No.205-H, measuring 100 sq.yards has been allotted to the complainant in the abovesaid scheme and it was represented by the Ops that the payment will be accepted only when the Ops will be able to take possession of the land under which the said plot falls as the matter is still pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Now no matter is pending in any court. The complainant even then many times approached the Ops to receive the payment but they lingered on the matter and asked the complainant to wait for some time. The complainant was shocked to receive letter vide memo No.LIT/SB/826 dated 4.11.1983, vide which, the Ops informed the complainant that the allotment of the abovesaid plot has been cancelled in terms of Resolution dated 159 dated 26.8.1993. Further, enquiry reveals that the Ops are going to allot the said plot to someone else of their favorite. The complainant approached the Ops to receive the amount as per the allotment letter but the OP refused. The complainant filed the civil suit No.504 dated 27.7.1996 for declaration against the Ops, which was decreed by the Court of Ms.Jatinder Kaur, PCS, Addl.Civil Judge Senior Division, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.1996 for declaration against the Ops and hold that the cancellation of allotment of the aforesaid plot is illegal. Thereafter, the Ops filed the civil appeal No.26 of 1.2.2010 against the said decree which was dismissed by the Court of Sh.S.P.Bangarh, District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2011. No further appeal has been filed by the Ops, as such, the decree dated 27.10.2009 became final. Thereafter, the complainant approached number of times with the Ops to receive the sale price of the aforesaid plot NO.205-H from the complainant, to complete the formalities by way of depositing the price of the abovesaid plot at the reserve price of Rs.110/- per sq.yards, so that the necessary Conveyance deed/registered sale deed as required under the law can be executed by the Ops in favour of the complainant and the possession of the plot be delivered to him. However, the Ops have put off the matter on one or the other pretext. In case, the Ops would have given the possession of the abovesaid plot No.205-H in time, the complainant could have saved her previous money by raising construction on the abovesaid plot. Hence, by filing this complaint, the complainant has made prayer for issuance of directions to the Ops to handover the possession of the plot No.205-H situated at 475 Acre Scheme  to the complainant and to execute and get the sale deed registered of the said plot in favour of the complainant by receiving the reserve price at the rate of Rs.110/- per sq.yards besides Rs.2 lakh as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant or in case, the plot is not available in 475 Acre scheme, then sought directions against Ops to allot a plot in another equally developed scheme on the same terms and conditions and on the same price and execute and register the sale deed after receiving the full payment @110/- per acre and put the complainant in physical possession of the plot.

2.                 The complainant has placed on record copy of the allotment letter dated 23.4.1983, vide which, the complainant was called upon to deposit Rs.11,000/- i.e. costs of the plot within 30 days in the account of the Trust and it was also made clear that Rs.2750/- i.e. 1/4^th share of the total price shall be deposited within 30 days after issuance of this allotment letter and thereafter, remaining 75% amount alongwith 12% interest was to be deposited in half yearly installments. Further, the complainant has also placed on record copy of judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 passed by the than Court of Ms.Jatinder Kaur, PCS, Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ludhiana and further, the complainant has placed on record copy of judgment alongwith decree sheet dated 15.9.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.26 of 1.2.2010 by the then Court of Sh.S.P.Bangarh, District Judge, Ludhiana.

3.                Perusal of the documents which have been placed on record reveals that the complainant has not placed on record any payment receipt of the amount which has ever been deposited by the complainant towards the sale price of the plot in question since the date of issuance of the allotment letter nor the complainant has placed on record any copy of request letter, vide which, he has ever made any efforts to deposit the sale consideration of the plot with the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. The complainant has also not executed any sale agreement with the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana nor executed any affidavit or any undertaking of deposit of sale consideration or comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Perusal of the copy of judgment and decree passed by the Court of Ms.Jatinder Kaur, the then Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Ludhiana reveals that suit for decree of declaration to the effect that the memo No.LIT/SB/826 dated 4.11.1993 and Resolution NO.159 dated 26.8.1993 cancelling the allotment of plot No.205-H, measuring 100 sq.yards in 475 acre known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana claimed to be illegal and against the principles of equity and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from re-alloting the plot No.205-H aforesaid to any person except the plaintiff, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. However, no prayer was made against Ops in that suit to allow him to deposit the sale consideration or to seek the possession of the plot in question and further, no prayer was made for the execution and registration of the sale deed qua the plot in question. Record further reveals that even after passing the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 in favour of the complainant by the Civil Court, the appeal filed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust was dismissed by the then Learned District Judge. However, the complainant did not come forward to make request  to the Ops regarding depositing of the sale consideration with the Ops and to take possession of the plot in question or to execute and register the sale deed or to execute the affidavit in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Rather, it appears that since 23.4.1983 i.e. the date of issuance of the allotment letter, the complainant remained silent to proceed further due to the reason best known to the complainant. So, it is apparently clear that the complaint of the complainant is quite time barred as the complainant could file the complaint within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action in his favour i.e. the date of allotment letter dated 23.4.1983. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 13.01.2015, which is clearly time barred.

4.                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.

5.                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.”   

6.                From the perusal of the above said provisions, it is clear that the present complaint is not maintainable and is also 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.

7.                So, in view of the above discussion, we do not admit the complaint of the complainant as the same is not maintainable as the same is barred by jurisdiction and 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:27.02.2015

(Gurpreet Sharma)