H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA, CAMP AT HAMIRPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.201/2008
DATE OF DECISION: 27.11.2009.
In the matter of:
1. Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority (HIUDA), The erstwhile H.P. State Housing Board, Nigam Vihar, Shimla. Through its Chief Executive Officer.
2. The Executive Engineer, H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority, Mandi, H.P.
3. The Assistant Engineer, H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority, Hamirpur, H.P.
… … Appellants.
The Owners/Residents Welfare Association, Naya Nagar Housing Board Colony, Hamirpur, H.P. through its President.
… … Respondent.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.
Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the Appellant: Mr. Munish Serkek, Advocate,
For the Respondent: None for the respondent though duly served as per office report.
O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel ( Retd.), President (Oral).
1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.6.2008 passed by District Forum, Hamirpur, in Consumer Complaint No.14/2001/2007. While allowing the complaint, District Forum has ordered as under:-
“9. Accordingly, we pass the following order.
The opposite parties are ordered and directed severally and jointly to refund the amount of maintenance charges deposited by the members of the complainant Association within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount deposited by it on account of maintenance charges from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 08.12.2000 till realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to cost of complaint, which we assess at Rs.2,000/-. The complaint stands allowed. Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties, free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to record room”.
2. Mr. Serkek, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal was bad for non joinder of parties inasmuch as that in the complaint Chief Executive Officer cum Secretary of the H.P. Housing Board, Shimla, Executive Engineer of H.P. Housing Board, Mandi and Assistant Engineer of the said Board have been added as party, whereas HIMUDA was not added as a party nor of its functionaries were arrayed as such. Thus, this appeal was bad for non joinder of parties.
3. In this behalf it could not be disputed by learned Counsel that HIMUDA has been constituted under a State Act and all assets and liabilities of Himachal Pradesh State Housing Board have vested in it. No doubt HIMUDA should have been added as a party, fact remains that when the complaint was filed in the year 2001, admittedly it was H.P. Housing Board that was the agency concerned with the colony in question at that point of time. That being the position, the objection raised on behalf of the appellants for non joinder of HIMUDA-appellant No.1 as well as its functionaries as parties appears to be a purely technical objection. Moreover, appeal has been filed by HIMUDA. In case order did not hurt the appellants, there was no occasion for appeal having been filed by it and its functionaries. Faced with this situation, Mr. Serkek tried to catch the last straw in this behalf when he urged that even H.P. Housing Board has not been added as a party. If we accept this submission, then we shall have to dismiss the appeal, because the appeal is filed by HIMUDA, his client. As such, the plea regarding non joinder is hereby rejected.
4. Next submission forcefully urged on behalf of the appellants was that maintenance was being regularly undertaken by the appellants of the colony in question and grievance to the contrary made by the respondents was wholly misconceived. District Forum below fell into error by ignoring this vital fact. In this behalf submission of the learned Counsel is wholly misconceived. We drew the attention of the learned Counsel to Annexure C/A, dated 15.2.2000, copy whereof is at page 43 of the complaint file. Amongst other things, it is mentioned in it that there are no funds against maintenance of colony alongwith development, until unless there is no funds available, it is very difficult to start the maintenance of the colony under various heads as mentioned in the said letter. Learned Counsel submitted that this does not in any manner improve the case of the respondents. We cannot lose sight of the fact that for maintenance funds are required. Issuance of this letter is not in dispute though learned Counsel submitted that even if what is stated in this letter is correct, even then fact remains, that at best direction should have been issued to maintain the colony. This submission is being noted to be rejected.
5. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cots.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary at Shimla and office is directed to send the same in the like manner to respondent-Association at the address as given in the Memo. of parties.
November 27, 2009.