DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 127 of 14.05.2007<br /> Decided on : 27-08-2007 <br /> <br /> Ravinder Kaur W/o Sh. T S Sidhu, R/o H. No. A-3, Staff Colony, Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Engineering and Technology, Ferozepur. <br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Bathinda Housing Complex, Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited, Opposite Milk Plant, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, through its Chairman.<br /> 2.Housefed, Punjab, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Sector 34-A, S.C.O. 150-151-152 Chandigarh.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Dhillon, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate, for opposite party No. 1.<br /> Sh. Harraj Singh, Advocate, for opposite party No. 2.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Plot No. 130 measuring 500 Sq. Yds. was originally alloted to Sh. Sunil Chada S/o Sant Ram Chada. Complainant had purchased it from him through his General Attorney. It was transferred in her name vide letter No. Hfed/TW-6631dated 21st April, 1995 issued by The Executive Engineer of opposite party No. 2. Possession of the plot was delivered to her. Accordingly, Possession Certificate dated 19.3.98 was issued by opposite party No. 2. All the dues were cleared by her. Resultantly No Due Certificate dated 20.10.95 was issued by opposite party No. 2. She had submitted site plan with opposite party No. 1 on 17.12.99 for getting the same approved for raising construction on the plot. Requisite fee of Rs. 6,000/- was deposited as map/development charges. Rs. 1,000/- were deposited towards water/sewerage connection charges. Another sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited as water security with opposite party No. 1. Requisite receipts were issued. She continued approaching opposite party No. 1 time and again to inquire about the sanctioning of site plan, but to no effect. Thereafter she sent registered letter dated 11.12.2000 requesting it to send copy of the approved map already submitted on 17.12.99 to enable her to start construction at the earliest, but to no result. Another registered letter was sent by her on 9.10.03 reminding opposite party No. 1 about the submission of the plan and non-delivery of the copy of the approved site map. Lastly on 26.8.04, she sent another registered letter for sending one copy of the approved site plan and providing water/sewerage connection at the earliest. It was made clear by her that she would pay the water/sewerage charges after the requisite connections are provided. She alleges that fact that reply of the letters has not been sent nor site plan has been sanctioned, amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Their act has caused her financial loss, mental agony and harassment. To the contrary, opposite parties have demanded a sum of Rs. 21,064/- as water and sewerage charges and Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance charges. She is not liable to pay them. Another bill No. 4151 dated 1.4.07 for Rs. 23,114/- as water and sewerage charges including the arrears has been sent. She assails this demand as arbitrary on the ground that opposite parties are not entitled to recover this amount. Opposite party No. 1 is taking benefit of its own wrong. It has caused financial loss and harassment to her to the tune of Rs. 3.50 Lacs. There is manifold escalation in the price of the construction material from 1999 todate. For this, she has undergone financial loss to the tune of Rs. 2.50 Lacs. She is living in a rented house. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been paid by her towards rent. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by her seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to sanction map submitted by her; quash demand of Rs. 23,114/- raised vide bill No. 4151 dated 1.4.07 of water and sewerage charges etc., and Rs. 15,000/- towards maintenance charges; pay Rs. 55000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version taking legal objection that complainant is not consumer; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as only Registrar of Societies is competent to adjudicate it under Punjab Co-operative Societies Act; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; it is hopelessly barred by time; she has not come with clean hands and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it admits that original allottee of plot No. 130 was Sh. Sunil Chada. Complainant had got it transferred in her name through his Attorney and letter dated 21.4.95 was issued by opposite party No. 2. Sh. Sunil Chada and the complainant purchased the plot for consideration. Possession of the plot was delivered on 19.3.98 and Possession Certificate was issued. She has cleared all the dues and No Due Certificate dated 21.10.05 has been issued in her favour. She had submitted site plan for approval for raising construction on the plot. Requisite fee was deposited by her. Inter-alia its plea is that as per its rules, regulations and bye-laws, the allottees of the plot are to pay non-construction charges incase construction is not raised within the stipulated period from the date of allotment and delivery of possession. It is also entitled to charge water, sewerage and maintenance charges from the plot owners. Complainant is residing at Ferozepur. College Management has provided her accommodation as is clear from the address mentioned by her in the complaint. She was not requiring residential house at Bathinda and as such, she did not want to raise construction on the plot. In order to avoid payment of non-construction charges, she had submitted site plan and had deposited the fee for raising construction. Thereafter she did not turn up to collect the sanctioned site plan as she did not want to raise construction. They did not impose/ demand non-construction charges upon her after furnishing the site plan. When it demanded water, sewerage and maintenance charges, complainant approached it. She was requested to collect the sanctioned site plan and to raise the construction but she paid no heed. Rather she proclaimed that she is not willing to raise construction and had presented the site plan only to avoid non-construction charges. Site plan in question is lying sanctioned in its office for the last many years. She can collect it at any stage. It denies that complainant ever approached it for collecting the site plan. It further denies that amount demanded by it is arbitrary. Rather the same has been levied as per its rules and bye laws. She has not undergone any loss. Other averments in the complaint including deficiency in service on its part are denied.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is bad for mis-joinder of it as party in this complaint. It has got nothing to do with the sanction of the site plan or waiving water supply charges and electricity charges. It has no concern with opposite party No. 1. Complainant is not consumer. This forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as complicated questions of law and facts are involved and evidence for them is possible only in civil court. Complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and complaint is false and frivolous. There is no specific denial of contents of para No. 1 to 3 on merits of the complaint. Only thing pleaded is that complainant be put to strict proof of them. It has been un-necessarily dragged into frivolous litigation. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavits ('Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter No. 6631 dated 21.9.95 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of Possession Certificate (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 20.10.98 (Ex. C-5), photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8), photocopy of letter dated 11.12.2000 (Ex. C-9), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-10), photocopies of letters and receipts (Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-14) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-15 & Ex. C-16). <br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1 affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Sh. Harbant Singh Jatana, Assistant Registrar, photocopy of Resolution dated 7.7.03 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of Resolution dated 22.12.98 (Ex. R-3), photocopy of letter dated 22.2.2000 (Ex. R-4) and photocopy of receipt of register (Ex. R-5) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of complainant and opposite party No. 1.<br /> 7. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that initially plot No. 130 was alloted to Sh. Sunil Chada who transferred it in the name of the complainant for consideration through his Attorney. Opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 21.9.95, copy of which is Ex. C-3 transferred this plot in the name of the complainant. Its possession was delivered to her by opposite party No. 2 on 19.3.98. Copy of the Possession Certificate is Ex. C-4. All the dues were cleared by her. Opposite party No. 2 issued No Due Certificate dated 20.10.98, copy of which is Ex. C-5. Site plan for raising the construction on the plot was submitted by her to opposite party No. 1 for approval on 17.12.99. Alongwith the site plan a fee of Rs. 6,000/- was deposited vide receipt copy of which is Ex. C-6. Rs. 1,000/- for water connection and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- were deposited on 17.12.99 vide receipts copies of which are Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8 respectively.<br /> 8. One of the legal objections taken by opposite party No. 2 is that complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence which can be produced only in civil court and as such this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. This objection is not tenable. Opposite parties have closed their evidence of their own. Nothing was brought to our notice that any other elaborate evidence was required by the opposite parties in this case which could not be produced on account of the fact that it could not be produced before this Forum. Matter has been set at rest by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCI Chamber Co-op Housing Society Limited Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited III(2003) CPJ 9 (SC) in which it has been held that merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved. Similar view has been held in the case of J J Merchant and Others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi and others III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC). Accordingly, we hold that this forum is well within its right to entertain and adjudicate this complaint.<br /> 9. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 vehementally argued that complainant is a member of opposite party No. 1 Society. This forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as only the registrar of Societies has got the jurisdiction to decide the matter in controversy as per provisions of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. Matter stands clinched regarding jurisdiction of such Foras over such disputes by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Sri Hanuman Sehkari Avas Samiti Limited Vs. Smt. Anandi Chaudhary 2005 CTJ 730 (CP)(NCDRC) in which it has been held that Consumer Forums under the Act can exercise jurisdiction over services being rendered by Society to its members. Mere fact that Registrar can also determine such like controversy under Co-operative Societies Act is no bar for Consumer Fora to entertain and try the complaint. Remedies available to the complainant under the Act of 1986 for redressal of grievances are in addition to the remedies available under the Co-operative Societies Act. For this, we get support from the authority Varadoor Cooperative Urban Society Limited Vs. T. Ammu & Others 2005(CTJ) 877 (CP)(SCDRC). Accordingly, conclusion is that this complaint before this Forum is maintainable.<br /> 10. Mr. Mittal urged that complaint is time barred by limitation as complainant had submitted the site plan for approval on 17.12.99 and the same was sanctioned but she did not turn up to collect the same during the period of more than six years. This argument is devoid of merits. It is not known as to on which date site plan was sanctioned. Evidence does not establish that the alleged fact of sanctioning the plan for construction was brought to the notice of the complainant. To the contrary evidence is available on the record which proves that she was approaching opposite party No. 1 time and again in one form or the other but opposite party No. 1 did not deem it fit to intimate her particularly in black and white. In our view, cause of action in this case is continuing one . Hence, there is no question of any limitation.<br /> 11. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 vociferously argued that complainant is living at Ferozepur and accommodation has been provided to her by the college management as is evident from the address given by her in the complaint. She was not in need of raising the construction on the plot in question. Fact that site plan was submitted by her for approval for raising construction and fee was deposited were merely an excuse for evading the liability of paying non-construction charges as she did not turn up to collect the sanctioned site plan. Opposite party No. 1 is legally entitled to charges water, sewerage connection and maintenance charges. Complainant did not collect the sanctioned plan despite the fact that request was made to her. Sanctioned plan is lying in its office. For all this, he drew our attention to the documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-5.<br /> 12. Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the complainant countered the arguments of the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 by submitting that at no point of time complainant was ever intimated by opposite party No. 1 about the sanctioning of the plan for construction submitted by the complainant. To the contrary, she was making all out efforts for getting the plan sanctioned for raising the construction. Water, sewerage connection and maintenance charges are to be paid after plan for raising the construction is sanctioned.<br /> 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 14. So far as the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Harbant Singh Jatana, Assstant Registrar is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavits of the complainant which are Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2. Perusal of Resolution dated 22.12.98, copy of which is Ex. R-3 reveals that security of water and sewerage is to be deposited to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. Connection fee for water and sewerage to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- is also required. Complainant has assailed the demand of Rs. 15,000/- towards maintenance charges but she has led no evidence in this respect. No document is on the record to establish that demand of Rs. 15,000/- has been raised from her towards maintenance charges. Admittedly site plan for approval for raising the construction was submitted on 17.12.99. Requisite fee of Rs. 6,000/- was deposited. Rs. 1000/- were deposited for water/sewerage connection charges. Another sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited as security for water/sewerage connection charges. Complainant has stated in her affidavit Ex. C-1 in so many words that she was approaching opposite party No. 1 and was repeatedly visiting its official to get the site plan sanctioned, but to no effect. To the same effect is her affidavit Ex. C-2. Even in para No. 5 of the legal objections in the reply of the complaint submitted by opposite party No. 1 it admits that it was approached by her. When site plan was not approved by opposite party No. 1, complainant issued registered letter to it on 11.12.2000, copies of the same and the postal receipt concerning it are Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10 respectively. Through this letter, she made it clear to opposite party No. 1 that map for approval for raising the construction was submitted by her on 17.12.99 alongwith necessary charges but till that date, copy of the approved plan was not received. She expressed her intention to start construction on the plot. Request was made by her for sending copy of the sanctioned plan so that she could start the construction at the earliest. Opposite party No. 1 paid deaf ears to this letter and did not consider it fit to send reply. Thereafter she sent another registered letter dated 9.10.03. Copies of the letter and postal receipt are Ex. C-11 and Ex. C-12 respectively. This letter also met with the same fate. Opposite party No. 1 is relying upon the letter dated 22.2.2000, copy of which is Ex. R-4 according to which site plan was approved subject to terms and conditions. It is not clear from Ex. R-4 or other record that this letter was ever sent or served upon the complainant. Mode of its despatch is not known. Opposite party No. 1 has stated that complainant is living at Ferozepur whereas letter copy of which is Ex. R-4 has been addressed to her at her plot No. 130, Housefed Colony, through Housefed Society, Bathinda. There is no affidavit of any official of Housefed Society that this letter was ever communicated to the complainant. As per its terms and conditions, it has been shown that she should deposit security etc., with Executive Engineer, Public Health for water connection although amount has already been deposited on 17.12.99. For sewerage connection remarks have been given that Certificate for licenced Architecture and Plumber be given after completion of the construction. Despite this, opposite party No.1 started sending bills for water/sewerage charges etc., although connections were not provided to her. Again she made request through registered letter dated 26.8.04 giving reference of her previous letter dated 11.12.2000 and 9.10.03 that she has not been provided with the copy of the approved plan for raising construction and that connections of water and sewerage have not been given. Copies of the letter and postal receipt are Ex. C-13 & Ex. C-14 respectively. Opposite party No. 1 did not send reply of this letter. If water/sewerage charges bill for Rs. 23,114/-, copy of which is Ex. C-16 could be sent to the complainant at her address of Ferozepur then there is no reason as to why opposite party No. 1 could not send the replies of the letters issued by her making the request for supplying her with the copy of approved map for raising the construction. Last letter issued by her is 26.8.04. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that plea raised by opposite party No. 1 that plan for raising construction was sanctioned by it but she did not turn up to collect the same is a made up one. Stance of opposite party No. 1 that since she is putting up at Ferozepur and as such she was not intending to raise construction on the plot does not appeal to reason at all. Firstly it is not plausible that an employee does not want home for him/her and his/her family during his/her service career. Rather employees are always conscious to construct his/her house during his/her service carrier so that he/she and his/her family may not be on the road after he/she is out of service. Moreover, it is not a case where complainant after submitting the map for approval and depositing the requisite fee, was sleeping over the matter. She was leaving no stone unturned for getting copy of the approved plan for starting construction by way of approaching the concerned officials of opposite party No. 1 and also by making line with it through letters. It appears that by taking plea as has been taken in the reply of the complaint, opposite party No. 1 wants to camouflage the negligence and carelessness of its concerned officials. Had opposite party No. 1 ever communicated the approval of the plan submitted by the complainant to her, some weight could be attached to its averments in the reply of the complaint. In these circumstances, defence set up by opposite party No. 1 appears unfounded and baseless. Accordingly, it is rejected. Opposite party No. 1 has failed to prove approval of the map for construction and release of water and sewerage connections to the complainant by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 23,114/- through bill No. 4151 dated 1.4.07, copy of which is Ex. C-16 is illegal, null and void and arbitrary. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 is writ large.<br /> 15. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant in the given situation. In view of our forgoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to opposite party No. 1 for approving map submitted by the complainant for raising construction and communicating sanction to her. Further direction is required to be given to opposite party No. 1 to withdraw demand of Rs. 23,114/- raised through bill No. 4151 dated 1.4.07 of water and sewerage charges etc., Map was submitted by the complainant for approval on 17.12.99. Years have passed after submission thereof but approval has not been given for construction nor communicated to her. There is manifold escalation in the price of the construction material. No doubt complainant has not proved by way of leading sufficient evidence the financial loss. Yet one thing is clear that act and conduct of opposite party No. 1 must have caused her mental tension, agony and harassment. In these circumstances, she becomes entitled to some compensation from opposite party No. 1 which we assess as Rs. 10,000/-. Relief sought by the complainant is to be given by opposite party No. 1. No rule/bye law has been shown by the complainant according to which opposite party No. 2 is to sanction the plan for raising the construction or waive the water/sewerage charges etc., Hence opposite party No. 2 has got nothing to do with the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1.<br /> 16. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 17. In the premises written above, complaint is accepted against opposite party No. 1 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint against opposite party No. 2 stands dismissed. Opposite party No. 1 is directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Sanction/approve map submitted by the complainant for raising construction on plot No. 130 and communicate it to the complainant in writing.<br /> ii) Withdraw demand of Rs. 23,114/- raised through bill No. 4151 dated 1.4.07 of water and sewerage charges etc., copy of which is Ex. C- 16.<br /> iii) Pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act would carry interest @ 9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced <br /> 27-08-2007<br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar) <br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member