THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 412 of 2014

Date of Institution : 30.7.2014

Date of Decision : 5.06.2015

S.Harjit Singh Uppal S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh R/o Sandhu Enclave, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Municipal Corporation,Amritsar through its Commissioner office at Town Hall, Amritsar

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh.Inderjit Lakhra,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh.U.K.Gaind,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

-2-

1 Present complaint has been filed by Harjit Singh Uppal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 8.10.2013 he deposited Rs. 19000/- for the regularization of plot No. 45-C, measuring 200 sq.yards bearing Khasra No. min 104//4/1 situated in the area of Naushehra, Abadi Sandhu Enclave, Near Celebration Resort, Verka Majitha Byepass Road,Amritsar, with the opposite party. Lateron complainant submitted the plan/map for its approval for the construction of building over the plot and deposited Rs. 5415/- with the opposite party on 15.1.2014. Complainant has alleged that when he approached the opposite party to know about the sanction of the map, he was told by the officials of the opposite party that this plot is not within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation ,Amritsar and it falls within the jurisdiction of PUDA and as such the opposite party refunded the amount of Rs. 19000/- to the complainant on 19.3.2014. The complainant requested the opposite party for the refund of his amount of Rs. 5415/- deposited for the approval of map and he was told that this amount cannot be refunded to him . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 5415/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 5000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that amount of Rs. 5415/- was got deposited as processing fee for the sanction of plan and as the area was not falling within the jurisdiction of opposite party, as such the complainant was advised to submit the plan with the concerned office. It was submitted that the complainant was told that the said amount of Rs. 5415/- is non refundable and as such complainant cannot claim refund of the said amount. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt Ex.C-2, copy of regularisation/composition fee chargeable Ex.C-3, copy of cheque dated 25.6.2014 Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 8.10.2013 Ex.C-5, copy of application for refund of regularisation/composition fee Ex.C-6, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-7.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Narinder Sharma ATT Ex.OP1.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant applied for regularisation of plot No. 45-C, measuring 200 sq.yards bearing min khasra No. 104//4/1 situated in the area of Naushehra, Abandi Sandhu Enclave, Near Celebration Resort, Verka Majitha Byepass Road, Amritsar , to the opposite party on 8.10.2013 and the complainant deposited Rs. 19000/- with the opposite party. Later on the complainant submitted map/plan for its approval for the construction of the building over the aforesaid plot and also deposited Rs. 5415/- with the opposite party as charges for sanction/approval of the plan/map against receipt dated 15.1.2014 Ex.C-2, in all the complainant deposited Rs. 24,415/- with the opposite party and this fact has been admitted by the opposite party I their noting Ex.C-3. But the opposite party later on told the complainant that the plot of the complainant is not within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and it falls within the jurisdiction of PUDA. So the opposite party refunded the amount of Rs. 19000/- to the complainant on 25.6.2014 vide draft Ex.C-4 dated 25.6.2014 , but the opposite party did not refund the amount of Rs. 5415/- deposited by the complainant for the approval/sanction of the map/plan against receipt Ex.C-2. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested for the refund of this amount, but the opposite party did not refund the amount to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the amount of Rs. 5415/- was got deposited as processing fee for the sanction of the plan. As the area was not falling within the jurisdiction of the opposite party, as such the complainant was advised to submit the plan with the concerned office. The said amount of Rs. 5415/- is not refundable as processing fee , whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 19000/- was refunded to the complainant vide draft Ex.C-4. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above disussion, we have come to the conclusion that as per the scheme laid down by the opposite party the complainant applied for regularization of the plot situated in the area of Village Naushehra Abadi Sandhu Enclave, Verka Majitha Byepass Road, Amritsar on 8.10.2013 and deposited requisite fee of Rs. 19000/- with the opposite party. Later on complainant also submitted map/plan for its approval for the construction of the building over the said plot, to the opposite party and deposited the amount of Rs. 5415/- as charges for sanction/approval of the map vide receipt Ex.C-2. However, the opposite party later on pointed to the complainant that the plot of the complainant does not fall within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation ,Amritsar and it falls within the jurisdiction of PUDA and they also advised the complainant to submit the plan/map

for approval, to the concerned authorities of PUDA. The opposite party in all received Rs.24,415/- from the complainant as is evident from the noting of the opposite party Ex.C-3. The opposite party returned all the papers to the complainant , but refunded only Rs. 19000/- vide draft dated 25.6.2014 Ex.C-4. However, they did not return the amount of Rs.5415/- to the complainant. As the opposite party has no jurisdiction over the plot of the complainant and they returned the entire documents to the complainant. They are also liable to return the entire amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party, to the complainant. The plea of the opposite party that Rs. 5415/- was charged as processing fee for the sanction/approval of the plan/map of the complainant's plot, as such the same is not refundable, is not tenable because the opposite party itself in their written version have stated that they returned the map/plan to the complainant for depositing the same with the concerned authorities of PUDA for approval/sanction of the same. So they are liable to return the charges for the sanction/approval of the said plan of the plot ,to the complainant.

9. Resultantly we hold that the opposite party was not justified for not returning the amount of Rs. 5415/- to the complainant.

10. Resultantly the complaint is allowed with costs and the opposite party is directed to refund this amount of Rs. 5415/- to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders ; failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

5.06.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member