DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No. 106/27.2.2008 Date of order: 12.3.2009.



Shankar Parshad son of Sh. Bharat Parshad through General Power of Attorney holder Manvinder Singh son of Sh. Harkrishan Singh, resident of 202-D, Urban Estate, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through Estate Officer 9GLADA) (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority)

(Opposite party)





Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

….

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present:

Sh. M.S. Sethi Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ramesh Lakhanpal Advocate for opposite party



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant through his general power of attorney Sh. Manvinder Singh has instituted this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for direction to the opposite party to handover possession of EWS house no. 1528 to the complainant.

2. His case is that complainant vide application dated 191.1995 was registered for allotment of EWS house in sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana to provide alternative accommodation to Jhuggi Dwellers near Vardhman Mill, Samrala Road, Ludhiana. Complainant being a Jhuggi Dweller also applied for flat by depositing Rs.1000/- on 6.1.1994 and was given registration no.1418/93. He was allotted vide letter dated 8.4.1994 EWS house no.1528. In compliance of terms and conditions of the allotment letter, deposited Rs.2234/- with the opposite party and thereafter got lease deed executed. But despite it, opposite party failed to deliver possession of allotted EWS house. His Jhuggi was gutted in fire in the year 1994 but despite his repeated requests, possession not delivered.

3. Opposite party claimed that the complaint is barred by limitation; complainant has concealed the material facts from the Fora; he had earlier filed a complaint on the similar allegation in this Fora, qua which he has not disclosed in the complaint; complainant is barred by his own act and conduct as he has failed to deposit Rs.2234/- within 30 days from the date of allotment, hence qua this infringement of conditions of allotment his security of Rs.1000/- was forfeited vide order date 29.9.1999, qua which complainant was intimated vide order dated 29.9.1999 sent through registered post.

4. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.

5. Preliminary objection is raised qua maintainability of the complaint because on the similar grounds, complainant had earlier filed a complaint and that he is not empowered to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. This contention of the opposite party has full force as Ex.R.1 is the copy of the complaint previously instituted by the complainant through Sh. Manvinder Singh. Present complaint is also instituted through Sh. Manvinder Singh. That complaint was contested by opposite party as is apparent from Ex.R.2, copy of their reply filed thereto.

6. Complainant has not disclosed to the Fora qua filing of the earlier complaint for possession of the same flat no.1528, qua which again same relief is sought in the present complaint. Hence, the second complaint instituted on the similar allegations, in our view is not maintainable. Therefore, on this ground, we dismiss the complaint. However, the complainant may pursue his remedy in the previously instituted complaint. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.



Announced T.N. Vaidya, President

Dated 12.3.2008