Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/65/2023

RISHI RAJ S/O LATE SH HEM RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	65 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	31.07.2023

 

Rishi Raj s/o Late Sh.Hem Raj, R/o House No.1056, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1. The Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. The Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Respondents/opposite parties

 

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

                            

Present:-              Sh.Rishi Raj, appellant in person.

                             Sh.Jashan Preet Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

                                      

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant/appellant has assailed the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.307 of 2021 filed by him was dismissed by it, holding as under:-

“…..6] The perusal of file reveals that the plot in question qua which the complainant sought relief against OPs by preferring present consumer complaint has admittedly been transferred/re-allotted in the name of Smt.Esha, daughter of complainant, as on 24.3.2021, whereas the present consumer compliant has been filed by complainant on 19.5.2021, which establishes that he has no locus standi to file the present complaint and seek any direction qua the plot in question.

7] Furthermore the complainant also do not have any authorization/attorney in his favour from the owner of plot i.e. Smt.Esha to pursue the present complaint on her behalf raising grievance, if any, in respect of plot in question.

8] Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we find not merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.….”

2.            Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that  he being the owner of Plot No.7759, Block-H, Aero City, Mohali (Punjab) submitted prescribed performa with the opposite parties   on 7.9.2020 for transfer of said plot in the name of his daughter Dr.Esha and deposited processing charges of Rs.11,328/- as well as Non-Construction Fee (Extension Fee) of Rs.1,30,000/-. Accordingly he was given due date of disposal as 21.9.2020. When nothing was heard in the matter, the complainant visited their office, whereupon he was told to deposit another amount of Rs.23,160/- towards interest on non-construction fee of Rs.1,30,000/-, which too was deposited on 23.10.2020. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the opposite parties   to know the status of his case and he was told that the file is under process. Thereafter, the complainant met the Estate Officer of the opposite parties   on 14.12.2020 and explained the whole matter and then he was told that an amount of Rs.902/- more is payable as processing charges, which was deposited on 18.12.2020 along with matriculation certificate of daughter showing the name of father as Rishi Raj.  Ultimately, Re-Allotment Letter was issued on 24.3.2021 i.e. after six months period due to which the complainant was made to pay more amount in the shape of non-construction fee. The complainant being General Power of Attorney of  his daughter applied to the opposite parties   for No Dues Certificate for getting Conveyance Deed executed in her name.  The complainant was made to pay Rs.74,355/- towards Non-Construction Charges before issuance of NDC.  Under Right to Service Act, 2018 only 5 working days are required for issuance of said certificate but it has not been issued even after a period of more than one month.  Hence he filed consumer complaint before the District Commission seeking directions to the the opposite parties to issue NO DUE CERTIFICATE for execution of Conveyance deed in respect of the plot in question; to pay compensation for the inordinate delay caused inspite of payment totaling to Rs.2,39,745/- and to grant exemption from payment of non-construction fee.
3.           In the reply filed, it was stated by the opposite parties that the permission to transfer the plot in question was granted to the complainant vide letter dated 10.2.2021 after receipt of prescribed transfer fee and non-construction fee and then on the basis of application of Smt.Esha d/o Sh.Rishi Raj, dated 25.2.2021 the plot in question was transferred in her name vide letter dated 24.3.2021. Smt.Esha is the present allottee/owner of plot in question who vide application dated 5.4.2021 applied for issuance of No Dues Certificate. The plot in question is in the name of Smt.Esha w/o Sh.Hari Mohan, therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant seeking direction for issuance of No Dues Certificate in respect of the said plot is not maintainable.  More so, there is no relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between the complainant and the opposite parties, therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Prayer of complainant for exemption from payment of non-construction fee cannot be allowed because issuance of NDC has no link with construction of building over the plot as the allottee is bound to raise construction of building over the plot and obtain Completion/Occupation Certificate for the same within the specific time period of allotment. It is Smt.Esha, the present allottee, who has applied for No Dues Certificate vide application dated 5.4.2021, for NDC online on GMADA’s website so that further action may be done with Smt.Esha as the complainant has no relation with the plot now. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
4.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in his complaint and controverted those contained in reply filed by opposite parties.
5.           The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Commission.
6.           The District Commission after hearing the parties and going through the material available on record, dismissed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above.
7.           Hence this appeal.        
8.           We have heard the appellant in person and counsel for the respondents; gone through the material available on the record and written arguments filed by the parties, very carefully.
9.           It may be stated here that perusal of contents of the order impugned reveals that  the District Commission, without touching the merits of the case, dismissed the same mainly on the ground that since the complainant did not have any authorization/attorney in his favour from the owner of plot i.e. Smt.Esha to pursue the consumer complaint, for redressal of her grievance, as the said plot stood transferred/re-allotted in her name on 24.03.2021, as such, the complainant was having no locus standi to file the consumer complaint.

                   Under these circumstances, the only moot question which falls for consideration before this Commission is, as to whether, the District Commission was right in dismissing the consumer complaint, on the ground aforesaid or not? In our considered opinion, the District Commission has wrongly held that the complainant-Rishi Raj did not place on record any authorization/attorney in his favour having been  received from the owner of plot i.e. Smt. Esha to pursue the consumer complaint, for redressal of her grievance. Had the District Commission gone through the record of the case carefully i.e. para no.7 of the consumer complaint, wherein, it was candidly mentioned by the complainant that “…I promised my daughter Dr.Esha to get the Execution of Conveyance Deed in her favour for which she has given me General Power of Attorney as she is busy in Covid Duty at Rohtak” and also the copy of General Power of Attorney dated 24.02.2021, filed by the complainant alongwith the rejoinder,  wherefrom it is clearly coming out that Ms.Esha, daughter of the complainant has authorized the complainant by way of this GPA to manage, control and to make/present applications/affidavits/documents etc. in respect of the plot in question and also agreed to confirm and ratify all the lawful acts, deeds and things done through Shri Rishi Raj-complainant. Relevant part of the said GPA which is already on record of the paper book of the District Commission is reproduced hereunder:-

“……GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

know all men by these present that I Esha D/O Sh Rishi Raj, w/o Hari Mohan, resident of House No.878/22 Jhang Colony, Rohtak (Haryana) states as follows:-

 

Whereas I am personally unable to attend due to emergent duties to take care of covid patients at Rohtak, I hereby nominate/authorize my father Shri Rishi Raj R/O House No.1056, Sector 18-C Chandigarh to manage & control and to make/present applications/affidavits/documents etc. in respect of my property Plot No.7759, Block H, Aerocity, S.A.S. Nagar.

 

1, do hereby agree to confirm and ratify all the lawful acts, deeds and things done by him i.e.my Father Shri Rishi Raj.

 

In witness where of this Attorney is signed by me at Rohtak on 27th day of December 2020 in presence of the following witnesses.….” 

 

10.           Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact that the plot in question stood transferred from the name of the Rishi Raj-complainant to his daughter-Esha. Perusal of record of the District Commission also reveals that the entire transaction qua transfer/re-allotment of the plot in question was carried out by the complainant. Even from the letter dated 10.02.2021 (at page 67 of the paper book of District Commission) it is coming out that the GMADA has informed the complainant-Rishi Raj to the effect that in pursuance of the letter as well as other documents filed by him qua transfer/reallotment of the plot in question in favour of Esha i.e. her daughter, the said plot stood transferred in her name. From this letter itself, it can easily be said that the complainant i.e. Rishi Raj has witnessed the entire transaction and possessed due knowledge regarding the said transaction qua transfer of the plot in question, which fact also stood mentioned by him in his complaint. Under these circumstances, since the complainant i.e. Rishi Raj has witnessed the entire transaction and possessed due knowledge regarding the said transactions qua transfer of the plot in question in favour of her daughter, which fact also stood mentioned by him in his complaint, it can easily be said that he (Rishi Raj) was competent to file complaint on behalf of  Esha, owner of the plot in question, being her General Power of Attorney holder, referred to above. Our this  view is supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC, wherein it was held that the Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint, if he has witnessed the transactions and possesses due knowledge regarding the said transactions. In Hamsa v. Ibrahim (1993 (2) KLT 698) it was held that whatever a person can do himself, he can do through an agent/Power-of-Attorney holder as well. The power-of-attorney holder can do everything empowered by the donor and all such acts done by the donee shall get legal recognition and acceptance as though such acts were done by the donor himself.
11.           In view of above, it is held that the appellant-Rishi Raj -was competent to file the consumer complaint on behalf of Ms.Esha his daughter, before the District Commission, as he was authorized by her by way of General Power of Attorney, referred to above, qua redressal of her grievance, if any, qua  the plot in question. The District Commission fell into an error by dismissing the complaint on this ground, without going into the merits of the case, by holding to the contrary.
12.           Resultantly, this appeal stands partly allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Consequently, this case is remanded back to the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh with the direction to decide it afresh on merits.
13.                 However, it is made clear that since in this appeal, this Commission has decided only the issue that Rishi Raj was competent to file consumer complaint on behalf of  Ms.Esha and has not touched the merits of this case, as such, this order passed will not have any bearing on the merits of the case at the time of considering and deciding the  consumer complaint by the District Commission, afresh. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 18.08.2023. 
14.                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15.                 The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and record of the District Commission concerned be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

31.07.2023

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg.