DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.514 of 18-10-2011

Decided on 08-11-2011

1. Sat Pal son of Late Shri Banarsi Dass;

    

2. Megh Raj son of Late Shri Banarsi Dass, both residents of House No.9257, Mohalla Punjab Wala, Bathinda.

    

3. Pushpa Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Late Sh. Banarsi Dass, resident of Maur Mandi, District Bathinda. .......Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Housing Construction Development Board, Mohali, through its Managing Director.

    

2. Punjab Housing Construction Development Board, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer.

......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant

For Opposite parties: Notice not issued to the opposite parties

ORDER

Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-

1. The present complaint has been jointly filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants were owners of land in the Revenue Estate, Bathinda. The State of Punjab compulsory acquired land of 44 Bighas 2 Biswas relating to the complainants family, more than 36-37 years back, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for settling up an Urban Estate at Bathinda, out of which the complainants were owners of 1/6^th share i.e. 7 Bighas 7 Biswas of land. The opposite parties had framed rules/policy for the allotment of alternate sites to the persons whose land was compulsory acquired. The complainants had sent different representations to the opposite party but his request was not considered for the allotment of the plot to the complainants. The complainants had filed a complaint No.280 of 07.07.1995. Many other similar situated persons also filed the complaints and since the point in issue was common so all the complaints were tagged and consolidated. The opposite parties also filed their respective replies and District Forum while deciding a bunch of cases, vide order dated 04.07.1997 has dismissed all complaints and held that they are not consumers as defined under the 'Act'. After the aforesaid decision, one of the complainant i.e. Atma Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh whose case was listed at Sr. No.6 in the aforesaid decision, filed a Writ Petition in which the Hon'ble High Court while dismissing the said petition had held that the complainants have the remedy. The said complainant filed an appeal No.1150 dated 13.11.1998 alongwith an application for condonation of delay which was ultimately decided by Hon'ble State Commission on 07.02.2000 vide which the Hon'ble State Commission held that the complainant was a consumer under the 'Act' and while remanding the case, the Hon'ble State Commission had directed the District Forum to decide the complaint on merit. In the complaint of Atma Singh, District Forum had passed a detailed and well reasoned order dated 31.10.2001 while allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.1,000/- and directed the opposite parties to allot the plot of 200 sq. yards @ 66/- per sq. yard to the complainant in Urban Estate, Phase-II, Bathinda with further direction, if the plot is not available in said Phase, then the same be allotted in any other Phase of the Urban Estate, Bathinda. The aforesaid order passed by District Forum was challenged by the opposite party i.e. PUDA in which the Hon'ble State Commission, vide its order dated 04.02.2008 dismissed the appeal of the opposite parties with cost of Rs.2,000/- and referred the Civil Suits filed by other similar situated oustees which were already decided in their favour and had become final. It was also held by Hon'ble State Commission that the opposite party was liable to allot the plot to the complainant on the basis of State Govt. policy of 1974. As per the information of the complainant, the plot has already been allotted to the said party i.e. Atma Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh. The complainant learnt about the allotment of the plot to the said Atma Singh only on 20.09.2011 and before that the complainant had no knowledge about the proceedings at the instance of Sh. Atma Singh in District Forum and before the Hon'ble State Commission and the resultant allotment of plot to him. The complainant has also sent other representations to the opposite parties vide Diary No.817 dated 06.04.2010 and Diary No.977 dated 21.04.2010. Hence, the complainants have filed the present complaint and prayed that the opposite parties be directed to allot the plot as per State Govt. policy of 1974 alongwith cost and compensation.

2. To support their version, the complainants have placed on file various documents i.e. order dated 04.07.1997; order passed by Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 07.02.2000; order passed by District Forum dated 31.10.2001; order passed by Hon'ble State Commission dated 04.02.2008; representation given to Bathinda Development Authority by Sat Pal received by BDA on 21.04.2010 alongwith affidavit of Sat Pal.

3. Preliminary hearing has been given to the complainant. Record placed on file perused.

4. The complainants had filed an earlier complaint on 07.07.1995 vide Consumer Complaint No.280 for the same cause of action which was dismissed on 04.07.1997 on the ground that the complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. In the present case, after the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant has not approached the appellate authority whereas one Atma Singh has approached the appellate authority and fought the case till its final consequences. Atma Singh filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Atma Singh had filed an appeal No.1150 of 13.11.1998 alongwith an application for condonation of delay which was decided by Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 07.02.2000 in which the Hon'ble State Commission held that the complainant is a consumer under the 'Act' and had remanded the case to the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.10.2001 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.1,000/- and directed the opposite parties to allot the plot of 200 sq. yards @ 66/- per sq. yard to the complainant in Urban Estate, Phase-II, Bathinda with further direction, if the plot is not available in said Phase, then the same be allotted in any other Phase of the Urban Estate, Bathinda. Thereafter, the opposite parties filed an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2008. Now, the complainants want to take benefit, granted to Atma Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh, without filing an appeal to the earlier complainant and has filed the present complaint. The earlier complaint filed by the complainant, was dismissed on the ground that he is not a consumer. Thus, the second complaint on the same cause of action does not lie. Further, the complaint is barred by limitation. The earlier complaint of the complainant was decided 04.07.1997 whereas the complainants have filed the present compliant on 18.10.2011. Hence, the present complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24-A of the 'Act' which is read as under:-

“Limitation Period:- (1) 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (10, a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies 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. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant. Thus, this complaint is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation and no second complaint lies on the same cause of action. Hence, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '

Pronounced in open Forum

08-11-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member