New Complaint No.248 of 2023.
Date of Institution:27.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:330 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 01.08.2018.
Date of order:01.02.2024.
Bihari Singh Son of Jagat Singh, resident of House No. 122, Opposite Dhillon Hospital, Arjun Dev Colony, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
The E.O. (Executive Officer), Municipal Council, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
….Opposite party.
Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Varun Gosain, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Bihari Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against The E.O. (Executive Officer), Municipal Council, Dhariwal (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is owner of the plot measuring 6 Marlas at Dhillon Hospital, Arjun Dev Colony, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It is pleaded that on dated 10.09.2010, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.23,665/- in lieu of the charges for clearing the site map of the house to be constructed by the complainant through receipt No.34/60 dated 10.09.2010 as per requirement of the opposite party. The opposite party after receiving the adequate amount does not perform their part of duty. The complainant regularly visited the office of the opposite party to obtain approved site plan, but the opposite party delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further pleaded that on dated 09.11.2017, when the complainant approached the opposite party for the no objection certificate, but the opposite party clearly ordered him to deposit another amount of Rs.21,919/- in the office of the opposite party and this amount was also deposited through beat No. 204, receipt No. 100 for getting the approved site plan and no objection certificate of the site map. It is further pleaded that the complainant deposited the amount asked by the opposite party in their office on dated 09.11.2017, although this demand was illegal and was not according to law as he was built his house. It is further pleaded that complainant suffered mental as well as physical harassment by the act and conduct of the opposite party as the complainant has to deposit the amount for clearing the site plan twice in the office of the opposite party and it is clearly deficiency in service on their part in performing their duty. It is further pleaded that the complainant through his counsel issued Legal notice dated 23.03.2018 to the opposite party calling upon them to refund the excess amount received by them in their office in lieu for clearing the site map of the house of the complainant, but the opposite party did not give any reply to the said notice despite due acknowledgment. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to refund the excess amount received by the opposite party from the complainant in their office in lieu for clearing the site map of the house of the complainant alongwith interest from the date of due till its realization and the opposite parties may further directed to pay the compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite party, in the interest of justice OR any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it fit, may also be given to the complainant.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that the complainant started construction of house on the plot unauthorizedly without getting his site plan passed from the answering opposite party. Notice No. 32 on dated 03.09.2010 was served upon the complainant, to which he replied vide letter dated 10.09.2010 begging apology and also deposited site plan fee of Rs.23,665/- vide receipt dated 10.09.2010. It is pleaded that the complainant was imposed composition fees of Rs.3,947/- for illegal construction of 33% construction and he was asked to deposit the same. However, vide application dated 10.12.2010, the complainant requested for compromise, but he did not turn up for settlement of his account. It is further pleaded that vide notification of Govt. of Punjab No. 3052 dated 21.08.2013, the complainant vide self-declaration dated 09.11.2017 requested for compounding of offences for creation of unauthorized colonies and regularization of plot / building, and deposited Rs.21,919/- as fees for compound of offence and accordingly the site plan of the complainant was passed and delivered on dated 17.11.2017. It is further pleaded that the amount deposited on dated 09.11.2017 was for regularization of his plot / building as per policy of the Govt. and same was legal. It is further pleaded that the complainant did not co-operated with the authorities of M.C, Dhariwal and played hide and seek and ultimately as per Govt. of Punjab Scheme, his building was passed and no Legal notice was received in the office of M.C, Dhariwal.
On merits, the opposite party denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Bihari Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 alongwith complaint.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.23,665/- for sanction of site plan with the opposite party vide receipt Ex.C5 but opposite party had not approved the site plan and thereafter on 09.11.2017 opposite party made further demand of Rs.21,919/- from the complainant for getting the site plan sanctioned. The demand of Rs.21,919/- was illegal and complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment and refusal to refund the excess amount, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that the complainant had started construction of his house unauthorisly without getting the site plan sanctioned and as such notice was issued to the complainant copy of which Ex.OP-1. After receiving the notice complainant had on 10.09.2010 vide Ex.OP-2 tendered apology and deposited Rs.23,665/- for getting the site plan sanctioned. It is further argued that opposite party had thereafter imposed compensation fee of Rs.3947/- for illegal construction of 33% and was asked to deposit the same but vide letter 10.12.2010 Ex.OP-3 complainant approched the opposite party for compromise but thereafter did not turn up. It is further argued that as per notification dated 21.08.2013 complainant made request for compounding of offence for creation of un-authorized colonies and regularization of plot and deposited Rs.21,919/- as fee for compounding of offence and as such there is no excess amount received by the opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on file his affidavit, Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copies of receipts Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of repudiation, copy of repudiation Ex.C5 whereas opposite party has placed on record copy of notice dated 03.09.2010 Ex.OP-1 copy of reply to notice Ex.OP-2, copy of application for compromise Ex.OP-3 copy of assessment Ex.OP-4, copy of application Ex.OP-5 and copy of self declaration Ex.OP-6.
12. It is admitted fact that complainant had deposited Rs.23,665/- for sanction of site plan vide receipt Ex.C4 and thereafter complainant had deposited Rs.21.919/- with the opposite party vide receipt Ex C3. The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that Rs.21,919/- was received by the opposite party in excess for sanctioning the site plan. However, the said plea was controverted by the opposite party with the plea that the amount of Rs.21,919/- received by the opposite party vide receipt Ex.C3 was fee for regularization of the plot in respect of which the complainant had submitted self declaration Ex.OP-6. perusal of file shows that after receipt of notice Ex.OP-1 the complainant had opted to get the site plan sanctioned and moved application Ex.OP-2 for getting the site plan sanctioned and accordingly on same day had deposited Rs.23,665/- and for compounding of offence moved another application Ex.OP-3 and the opposite party had received Rs.21,919/- for regularization of the plot. Opposite party had charged regularization fee of the plot as Rs.4494/-, development fee Rs.13,500/-, building and other charges of Rs.3925/- total Rs.21,919/- vide receipt Ex.C3 but perusal of receipt Ex.C4 shows that opposite party had already charged Rs.16,500/- as development fee in receipt Ex.C4, as such it is proved on record that the opposite party received Rs.13,500/- in excess as development fee which was charged two times. Accordingly, charging of development fee vide receipt Ex.C3 second time without any justification and explanation amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
13. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 01, 2024 Member.
*YP*
