BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.65 of 2022
Date of Instt. 08.03.2022
Date of Decision: 07.02.2023
Daler Singh (deceased) through LRs Narinder Kaur aged about 82 yrs W/o Late S. Daler Singh resident of Backside Sharma Cable Basti Bawa Khel Kapurthala Road Jalandhar Tehsil and District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Chairman Improvement Trust, Amritsar.
2. Executive Officer Improvement Trust Amritsar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Application for dismissal of the complaint.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajiv Suri, Adv. Counsel for Applicant/OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. Rajeev Kohli, Adv. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. Today, the Member/Smt. Jyotsna is on leave. Heard on application for dismissing the complaint being not maintainable and without jurisdiction.
2. It has been alleged by the OP that the complaint has been filed beyond limitation and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the plot was allotted to the complainant at Amritsar by way of Draw held on 28.04.2010 and the allotment letter dated 21.05.2012 was issued and all proceedings were done at Amritsar and thus the complaint is to be decided by the Court of Amritsar. The property is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Amritsar. Therefore, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The allotment has already been cancelled, therefore the complaint be dismissed.
3. The application has been contested by the complainant. It has been alleged that as per Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant can file the complaint at Jalandhar also. The Commission at Jalandhar has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant was allotted the plot under special scheme for allotment of plots for affected sikh migrated families under riot category and 20% less amount was to be received by the OP for the plot, but the complainant has been requesting the OP time and again to grant him the relief as per the provisions of the scheme, but he has not been given plot nor any concession has been given. The complainant resides at Jalandhar and as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is entitled to file the present complaint at Jalandhar.
4. It is admitted that the complainant was allotted the plot on 21.05.2012 under special category of Migrates scheme. The schedule of depositing the payment has also been given in the allotment letter. As per the allegations of the OP, the complainant has not deposited the 1/4th amount of the plot which was required and due to this fact, the plot was forfeited and the allotment was cancelled. As per the letter dated 21.10.2013, the complainant was informed about the forfeiture of the plot on 01.08.2013. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application on 04.09.2014 for the review of the order. He was given the personal hearing also. He was further informed vide letter dated 05.12.2014 also regarding the forfeiture of the allotment. He again represented on 12.02.2015 mentioning therein all the facts that he was unable to deposit the amount due to his health condition as well as the health condition of his son, but he has nowhere mentioned that he is ready to deposit the balance amount, if the less amount of 20% as alleged is charged.
5. Though, as per Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant can be filed within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the complainant resides or personally works for gain. In the present case, the complainant resides at Jalandhar as per the Aadhar Card filed on record by the complainant, but at the same time, the complaint is to be filed within limitation which is two years period of the cause of action. The complainant has alleged that he made representations to the OP since the allotment and last representation was of the year 2021 i.e. letter dated 31.03.2021, therefore, the same is within the limitation as the complaint has been filed on 08.03.2022, but this contention of the complainant is not tenable. Admittedly, the plot was allotted in the year 2012 and the same was cancelled in the year 2013. He made representation till 2015 when he was given the opportunity to be heard personally. No further representation was made till 31.03.2021. After six years of the last representation, he moved an application on 31.03.2021 just to cover the limitation and jurisdiction but he has to file the complaint within two years of 2015, but he has not filed the complaint during the period. More so, when the cause of action arose in the year 2015 and at that time, the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was applicable and as per Section-11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arisen. So, the complainant has not filed on record any document to show that he was continuously making representations and correspondences with the OPs after 2015 till 2021, therefore, the complaint is beyond limitation and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and thus, the application is allowed and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being not maintainable and without jurisdiction. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
07.02.2023 Member President
