JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.7.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs to issue the letter of conversion within 30 days, from the date of receipt of documents as mentioned at serial number 1 to 4 of the letter dated 20.05.2010 ; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, within the same time, failing which they were directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount, from the date of filing the complaint till compliance of the order, and also to pay Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation. It was further directed that the OPs could recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5500/- from the officials responsible for delaying the issuance of the desired permission and who were required to maintain the file, and/or who had misplaced the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard. It was also directed that instead of the affidavit, mentioned at serial number 5 of the letter dated 20.5.2010, a simple declaration would be given by the complainant. The OPs, were also given the liberty to take appropriate action, if subsequently, it was found that the plot had been cancelled by the Chandigarh Housing Board. 2. The complainant was allotted H.No.911/1, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh by the Chandigarh Housing Board OP NO.1. It was stated that vide letter dated 1.10.1978 he had deposited the full and final payment in lump sum. He was accordingly issued ‘No Due Certificate’ vide letter dated 2.11.1979. It was stated that, as per the policy of the OPs, the complainant applied for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold, vide application dated 2.6.2006, and submitted the required documents alongwith the draft of Rs.2870/-. Thereafter, he repeatedly visited the office of the OPs and also submitted letters/reminders dated 3.8.2007, 19.6.2008 and 21.1.2009 to know about the status of his application. Finally, he issued a letter dated 11.5.2009 under the RTI Act, through an Advocate ,for the release of the freehold certificate, and in response to the same, he received letter dated 11.6.2009 from the OPs informing that the original application was not traceable. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 10.7.2009 alongwith a set of relevant documents, was sent by the complainant, to the OPs, with the request to release the freehold certificate, but to no avail. It was further stated that the OPs, thus, were deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, a complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act). 3. In their written reply, it was pleaded by the OPs that the Complainant was not a Consumer. It was admitted that the complainant had applied for conversion of H.No.911/1, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh from leasehold to freehold, alongwith documents. It was also admitted that the original file of the flat had been missing from the record since, 2006. It could not be traced despite best efforts. The OPs also admitted the receipt of letters dated 3.8.2007, 19.6.2008 and 11.6.2009. It was, however, stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, as stated, in the opening para of this judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellants/OPs. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, the Complainant did not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as no service was to be provided by the OPs, to him, for consideration. He further submitted that, as such, the complaint was not maintainable. He further submitted that no loss, was ever, suffered by the complainant. He further submitted that, in case, the application alongwith documents, was submitted by the complainant, to a person/officer, who was not dealing with his case, then it could not be said that the person, to whom, he had delivered the application and the documents, was deficient, in rendering service. He further submitted that, on account of heavy rush of work, if the application of the complainant was lost, the Chandigarh Housing Board could not be penalized. He further submitted that there was neither deficiency, in service, on the part of the appellants, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the Secretary of the Chandigarh Housing Board, was exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. He further submitted that, as such, the application alongwith the documents, for conversion of his property from leasehold to freehold, was presented before the said Officer, who was dealing with the matter. He further submitted that the complainant fell within the definition of ‘Consumer’. It was further submitted that since the application was lost in the office of the OPs, may be on account of the fault of their officials, they could not absolve themselves of their liability. He further submitted that the OPs were deficient in rendering service, to the complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum , being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, House NO.911/1, Sector-40-A, Chandigarh was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 1.10.1978. There is also, no dispute, about the factum that he had applied for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold, and also deposited the requisite fee of Rs.2870/-, through demand draft. It means that the OPs were the service providers and the complainant was the consumer. The OPs were providing service, to the consumer, for consideration. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the Complainant did not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer’. The submission of the Counsel for the OPs, in this regard, being without merit , must fail, and the same is rejected. 10. Once the application, alongwith the documents, for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold, was submitted by the complainant, to OP NO.2/appellant, who was exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, it was the duty of the OPs, to keep the same in proper and safe custody. The OPs could not be expected to deal with the complainant, in such a shabby manner, by misplacing his application and documents. For how long an ordinary citizen, who falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, can wait for a response, from the service provider like Chandigarh Housing Board. Even then, the complainant maintained patience for a period of more than one year and two months, from the date of submitting the application, and when nothing was heard from the OPs, left with no other alternative, he sent reminders annexure C5, dated 3.8.07, annexure C-6,dated 19.6.2008 and annexure C-7, dated 21.1.2009. The OPs did not respond to these letters and slept over the matter, without realizing as to what were their duties towards the ordinary citizens. It was, thereafter, that the complainant issued notice C-8 dated 11.5.09 to the Public Information Officer seeking information under the RTI Act, which was supplied to him vide letter C-9 dated 11.6.2009, intimating for the first time, that the conversion file of his dwelling unit, was not traceable. The letter dated 11.6.09 was issued to the complainant without verifying the record because one Renu Rana, Senior Assistant, intimated the Accounts Officer of the Board vide annexure R-2 dated 30.6.09 that the said file was not received by her, as she had been transferred from the Reception Counter in the month of April,2006. Jagdish Rai Manchanda, Jr. Asstt. also informed the Accounts Officer of the Board vide R-6 dated 29.6.09 that he was never deputed for receipt of the Dak and that he performed his duty as a Despatcher at the Reception Counter. It was, thereafter, that a notice R-7 was issued to two other officials on 9.7.2009, who did not file reply to the same. This depicts the sad state of affairs prevailing in the Chandigarh Housing Board. Even no action was taken against any official, who erred in misplacing the application and the documents submitted by the complainant , for the aforesaid purpose. Vide letter dated 20.5.2010, the OPs asked the complainant to submit the documents mentioned therein so as to enable them to expedite his case. Some of the documents, mentioned at serial No.1 and 3 of this letter , had again been submitted by the complainant, alongwith letter dated 10.7.2009. It appears that nobody bothered to look into the record. The documents which were sent by the complainant vide C-10 dated 10.7.2009, may also have been misplaced by the officials of the OPs. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the OPs were completely deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
