Haryana

StateCommission

A/858/2015

SUB.RAJ KUMAR DHINGRA(RETD.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAJ. GEN DEVENDER KUMAR PUROHIT(RETD.) - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No: 858 & 924 of 2015

Date of Institution: 08.10.2015 & 21.10.2015

Date of Decision: 19.01.2016

 

Appeal No.858 of 2015

 

Sub. Raj Kumar Dhingra (Retd.) s/o late Shri Lal Chand Dhingra, Resident of House No.397, Sector 47, Gurgaon.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Maj. Gen. Devender Kumar Purohit (Retd.) s/o Sh. A.K. Purohit, Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi.

2.      Col. Surender Sharma, Project Director, AWHO Sandeep Vihar, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.  

                                      Respondents

 

Appeal No.924 of 2015

1.      Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011.

2.      Col. S.M. Jindal, Project Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation, Sandeep Vihar, Sector-20, Panchkula.

Appellants/Opposite Parties

                                                Versus

Subedar Raj Kumar Dhingra (Retd.) House No.397, Sector 47, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018.

Respondent

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:                    Shri Raj Kumar Dhingra, in person.

Shri Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for AWHO/Opposite Parties.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals bearing No.858 and 924 of 2015 having arisen out of common order dated 21^st September, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short District Forum),  in Execution Application No.9/ 2015.

2.      Complaint No.224 of 2009 filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Panchkula and having been contested by the opposite parties, was accepted vide order dated 14^th June, 2010.

3.      The opposite parties preferred appeal bearing No.1162 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by this Commission vide order December 6^th, 2011. The opposite parties preferred Revision Petition No.1110 of 2012 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘National Commission’), New Delhi, and vide order dated April 22^nd, 2014 the case was remanded to this Commission for fresh decision.

4.      After hearing the parties, the appeal filed by opposite parties was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 5^th December, 2014.   Against the said order, the Revision Petition bearing No.688 of 2015 filed by the opposite parties, was dismissed by Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 22^nd May, 2015. Resultantly, the order dated 14^th June, 2010 of the District Forum attained finality.

5.      The complainant filed Execution Application No. 9 of 2015 before the District Forum. The opposite parties stated that they had already allotted a Super Del IX Apartment (SDA) type dwelling unit (approx. 1680 sq. ft) at AWHO project in Sector 114, Mohali, to the complainant vide letter dated 3^rd September, 2015.

6.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum dismissed the execution application having been fully satisfied with the observation that the opposite parties shall retain the lien of the complainant in Sector 20 and 27, Panchkula.

7.      Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal No.858/2015 praying that certain applicants junior to him have been allotted flats in Sector 20 and 27, Panchkula and therefore as per his lien, he be given flat in any of those sectors.  

8.      The Managing Director and Project Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation/Opposite Parties, filed appeal No.924/2015 praying for setting aside the direction regarding retaining lien of the complainant.

9.      We have heard Shri Raj Kumar Dhingra-complainant and Shri Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for opposite parties.

10.    Complaint of the complainant was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 14^th June, 2010 issuing directions as under:-

“8.     With the above said detailed observations and record placed on file grave deficiency in service on the part of Ops is clearly established and we hold the same with the following directions to the Ops to comply the same within a period of six months from the receipt of this order:

1. To allot the flat/Economy apartment to the complainant within a period of 6 months in Sandeep Vihar, Sec-20 or Sect-27, Panchkula failing which the complainant will be allotted an apartment in their housing project in Sec-114 (Mohali) as per his registration at the same price as well as on the same terms and conditions as detailed in (Ex.C-1).
2. It is also made clear that the complainant will retain his lien as per his present waitlist seniority on any vacancy that may arise in Sandeep Vihar, Sec-20 or Sec-27, Panchkula. Also that in case the complainant exercises his right in case of vacancy in Sec-20/27 he will have to give up flat allotted to him in sec-114 Mohali.
3. To pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment suffered by the complainant.”

11.    Indisputably, the above mentioned directions have attained finality. It has been clearly mentioned in the above said order that the complainant be allotted dwelling unit in Sector 20 or 27, Panchkula, failing which the complainant will be allotted apartment in Sector-114, Mohali and that the complainant shall retain his lien as per waitlist seniority, in Sectors 20/27, Panchkula.

12.    In the absence of any evidence with respect to allotment of any dwelling unit in Sector 20 and 27, Panchkula, to any member lower in seniority in registration from the complainant, this Commission does not find any ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The District Forum has passed the orders in consonance with the order dated June 14^th, 2010 of which compliance is being sought.

13.    Hence, both these appeals are dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 19.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL