(Delivered on 17/07/2018)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The instant appeal is filed against  the order  of the District Forum, Nagpur  passed in  complaint No. 254/2011 dated 20/03/2012 granting the complaint  partly and directing the opposite party (short for O.P.)  to  publish the  public notice regarding  successors  and  plot allotment  for the complainant  and to  ask for objections and then after sale  the plot  to the  complainant and hand it over. Further directed the O.P.  to  provide the complainant   a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for  physical and mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as a cost of the  complaint.   The order to be complied  in the span of two months from the date of receipt  of it.

2.      The complaint in short was filed  with the contentions  that  one Ramesh More was  the owner of the  plot  No. 516 provided by  O.P. in Indora area. He had  provided  the  gift  deed  of this plot  No. 516 in the name of the  complainant  during  his life.  Ramesh More  died on  15/03/2011.  The complainant   is a brother in-law  of this More. However, his wife had died.  Ramesh More who was the brother in law  of complainant  had no successor  after his death. The complainant  submitted that  Ramesh More was the lease  holder  of plot No. 514, but he had exchanged  the plot No. 516 from one Kaushal leaving in the same area.

3.      The complainant  therefore, filed an application to  give him  the  mutation of plot No.  516 which was exchanged by  Shri More with  Shri Kaushal from the same area with consent  of  the O.P. being the lease provider of the  City. The complainant  claimed  to have submitted  the affidavit  in support of  his  application, gift deed. However, the O.P. did not act upon his application and  did not  doe the mutation  of  the plot  in his name.

4.      Therefore, the complainant  claimed  to be a consumer  being the successor  of this Ramesh  More. The O.P.  did not  mutate the plot  and thereby  caused  deficiency in service. Hence,  the complainant filed a complaint  with a  prayer  to direct the O.P.  to provide him the vacant  possession of plot No. 516 and  to provide him  Rs. 25,000/- for  physical and mental harassment  and Rs. 5,000/- a cost of the complaint.

5.      On notice, the O.P. countered the complaint  by filing  reply  stating that  the complainant  cannot be the consumer  of the O.P. and has  suppressed the material facts from the learned Forum. The O.P. submitted that the complainant has not submitted an appropriate  succession  certificate  or  a competent  document to prove that he is the  only  successor of  deceased Ramesh  More to get the possession of the plot.  He has also not submitted any  evidence  regarding relation with  Ramesh More.

6.      The O.P. submitted that the complainant did not ask the mutation  when Shri More was living  who had gifted the plot. Also  the gift deed alleged to be submitted , is not a  registered  gift deed. The O.P. therefore claimed that, it being  an  independent  institution  controlling  the  lease  of  Government Lands cannot accept  such  document to  transfer, mutate   the  plot. The O.P.  further  submitted that the   complainant had demanded the sale of the plot which is a government land and hence, cannot be sold.  The O.P. therefore, requested  to dismiss the complaint with the cost.

7.      Both parties filed the evidence and complainant filed a counter affidavit.

8.      The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that  in case of  a death of a consumer,  under section 2(1)(b) (5) of the Consumer  Protection Act,1986, his legal heirs  or a representative  is allowed to press for the servcie. It is  proved from the  gift deed and  affidavit that  the  complainant is a legal heir of the  deceased  Ramesh  More (DRM) who has  provided the gift on 11/01/2000 to the  complainant  with  rights to  use and  appropriate  the plot by describing all his conditions. Hence,  the complainant  is a consumer.

9.      The learned Forum held that  the O.P.  did not take any objection  to the gift deed except  calling it to be  not registered. It is decided by many High Courts and Supreme Court that the  intention  of  provider of document  proves  the document. Hence,  raising  non registration of gift deed  objection,  is  illegal. Also  the contentions of  O.P.  that  the complainant  should prove his relation with Ramesh More is irrelevant when the complainant has  submitted the indemnity  bond and has proved the death of Ramesh More  on15/03/2001.

10.    The learned Forum therefore held that  by adopting  a simple procedure of publishing  a public notice and calling  the objections, the O.P. could have  verified   the correctness  of the application.  However, by asking  the succession certificate from the competent  Court to a person of 70 years like  complainant is  unjustifiable and  to not taking   decision upon it for  five years is a deficiency in service deserving  compensation.  The learned Forum thus  passed the order above.

11.    Aggrieved against  the order, the O.P. filed this appeal, hence it  is referred as   appellant. Advocate H.N. Verma  appeared on behalf of appellant. The original complainant was declared  exparte being  not present  inspite of public notice.

12.    The  advocate for the appellant  submitted that  the appellant  is a  area development  authority of the City  and  gives the  plots  on lease  for  a specific duration. The respondent  had filed the application with  gift deed on a   100 rupee stamp paper claiming him to be the  sole successor of Ramesh More, the  lease holder of the plot.  The authority  demanded from  him  a succession certificate from the competent  authority  which is the  correct conclusive  document of  legal heirship for mutation of  the lease. Also  unless  the  respondent  become  a lease holder he cannot   claim any right  of service upon the  appellant. However,  the learned Forum failed to appreciate the  correct  position of the law, requirement of the functioning  of the public authority  and passed the order  putting  all the  responsibility  to  assess the  legal successor ship  of the respondent  upon it. Also  provided  the compensation when the requirements are clear and defined for no reason.  Thus  the  order being  unreasoned needs to be set aside.

13.    We considered the contentions  of the appellant  with  reasoning  in the order and evidence  submitted by the respondent. We find  that  whatever documents might be filed  by the respondent  they cannot take the place of the documents which are legally required to prove the succession before the public authority.  The demand of  regular  succession  certificate  and  registered  gift deed  by the competent  authority  cannot be considered  as  wrong and  unrequired.  Also  the  public  authority  cannot be directed to act itself  to prove the  legal heirship of the respondent or  any applicant. Also  unless  the applicant  becomes the lease  holder he cannot claim to be the consumer  of  public authority.  Hence, the appellant  is right in asleing the respondent  to   provide the required documents  for  proper  action  upon his application. The act  of  appellant  in calling  succession  certificate  from competent Court  for a recalling  the plot  in the name of respondent , thus does not  constitutes  deficiency in service  on the part of appellant.

14.    Hence,  we find that  the directions  given by the learned Forum are not in consonance  with the requirements of law. Therefore, the order  cannot  sustain  to be confirmed.  Hence, the order below.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is allowed.

ii.       The order of the learned Forum is set aside. Complaint stands  dismissed.

iii.      Parties to bear their  own cost.

iv.      Copy of the order be provided to both the parties , free of cost.