Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/31/2023

PUSHPA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAGAR VIKAS NYAS - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	31 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	16.02.2023
Date of Decision	:	02.05.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pushpa Rani, Aged 57 years wife of Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal R/o House   No.3233, Ground Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

 

…Appellant/ Complainant.

VERSUS

1]       Nagar Vikas Nyas (Urban Improvement Trust) (Urban Improvement Trust) Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) 335001 through its Secretary.

2]       Nagar Vikas Nyas (Urban Improvement Trust) (Urban Improvement Trust) Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) 335001 through its Chairman.

3]       Chairman, Nagar Vikas Nyas (Urban Improvement Trust) (Urban Improvement Trust) Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) 335001.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-     

Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal, authorized representative of the appellant.

Respondents exparte vide order dated 27.03.2023.

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

1]                This appeal has been filed by the complainant (appellant  herein) for  setting aside order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which her consumer complaint bearing No.17 of 2023 has been dismissed at the preliminary stage being not maintainable with liberty to get her grievances redressed through alternative remedy, permissible to her under law. The District Commission in Para 4 of its order observed that since the plot was allotted to the complainant on a lease of 99 years, as such, there was no relationship of consumer and service provider and rather, there is relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties. It (District Commission) relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Estate       Officer vs. Charanjit Kaur, Civil Appeal No.4964 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5051 of 2018) decided on 07.09.2021 and the judgment of this Commission passed in Appeal No.166 of 2018 titled Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another Vs. Prem Chand and another decided on 13.05.2022.

2]                At the time of admission hearing, it was submitted by Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal, authorized representative of the appellant that the allotment letter was never supplied but when the appellant visited the office of the respondents in September 2022, on checking the record, it came to her notice that the unit in question, which was allotted to the appellant (Pushpa Rani) vide allotment letter (Annexure C-1), was also allotted to some other person. He further submitted that the District Commission has not appreciated the facts and evidence available on record and rather, misinterpreted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Estate Officer Vs. Charanjit Kaur (supra).

3]                It may be stated here that when despite service of notice through registered post on 28.02.2023 and through email on 24.02.2023 the respondents failed to appear before this Commission, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.03.2023.

4]                We have heard the contentions on behalf of the appellant and   have also through the material available on record.

5]                The only question to be decided by this Commission in the present appeal, is as to whether the District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint being not maintainable in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Estate Officer Vs. Charanjit Kaur (supra)? Our answer to this question is in negative for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Bare perusal of record transpires that Plot No.3G16 measuring 250.09 sq. meter was allotted to the appellant @Rs.580/- per sq. meter vide allotment letter 30.05.1997 on lease basis and the cost of the said plot was Rs.1,45,052/-. Here, we have a case before us, wherein allotment had been done in favour of the appellant on the basis of draw of lots, on her becoming successful. As per Clause 5 of the allotment letter dated 30.05.1997, it was after taking the possession by the allottee that the building construction should be done within 3 years of taking possession as per approved maps, which as averred in the complaint, the respondents failed to deliver. Vide letter dated 01.01.1998, the appellant agitated before the respondents that she had deposited the money alongwith application and was successful in draw of allotment of plots but she did not get any allotment letter or any information of unsuccessful allotment or refund money. Vide said letter dated 01.01.1998, she requested the respondents to issue her allotment letter as she was ready to pay the balance amount. The appellant subsequently issued numerous letters/reminders dated 02.01.1999, 01.01.2000, 05.02.2001, 04.02.2002, 01.01.2003, 01.01.2004, 04.04.2005, 04.02.2006, 06.01.2007, 07.01.2008, 01.01.2010, 01.01.2011, 03.02.2012, 05.01.2013, 08.02.2014, 09.03.2015, 10.03.2016, 03.04.2017, 03.01.2018, 05.01.2019, 06.01.2020 and 04.01.2021. Thus, it is the specific case of the appellant that she never received the allotment letter and when she visited the office of the respondents in September 2022, on checking the record, it came to her notice that the unit in question, which was allotted to her, was also allotted to some other person. In Para 13 of her complaint, the appellant has averred that she received the copy of allotment letter after several efforts. The onus to prove the fact that the allotment letter was duly sent to the appellant and she received the same is upon the respondents. So far as the reliance placed on the case Estate Officer Vs. Charanjit Kaur (supra), it may be stated here that the said case pertains to dispute qua conversion of lease hold sites to free hold sites. It was under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the dispute inter se lessee and lessor did not fall within the ambit of Consumer Fora, whereas, in the instant case, the appellant is seeking only allotment and possession of unit in question and not conversion of lease hold to free hold. The District Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant at the preliminary stage without issuing notice therein. Therefore, it is a fit case for issuing notice to the opposite parties, where after only, the allegations made in the complaint could be addressed on the basis of record available with the opposite parties. In the instant case, the allegation made in the complaint being serious in nature with regard to non-receipt of allotment letter and allotting the plot in question to some other person should be decided on merits in accordance with law.

6]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh for decision on merits in accordance with law preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt of record.  

7]                The appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 12.05.2023.

8]            Certified copy of this order alongwith complete record be sent to the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh so as to reach there well before the date fixed i.e. 12.05.2023.

9]                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

10]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

02.05.2023.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad