State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vinod Kaushik Son Of Shri I.D. Kaushik, ... vs 1. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban ... on 9 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.353 of 2010 Date of Institution: 17.03.2010 Date of Decision: 09.10.2012 Vinod Kaushik son of Shri I.D. Kaushik, resident of H.No.375-R, Model town, Panipat. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. 2. The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate for appellant. Shri Ajay Nara, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon whereby complaint filed by complainant (appellant herein) was dismissed.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that complainant was allotted a residential plot bearing No.579-C Part I in Sector-15, Gurgaon in the year 1993 under Discretionary Policy subject to the completion of formalities and after completion of required formalities, allotment letter was issued to the complainant vide memo No.3015 dated 24.07.1993. The aforesaid allotment was cancelled vide memo No.4328-29 dated 16.06.1997 as per the order passed by Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the amount of Rs.214395/- deposited by the complainant was refunded to him vide cheque No.557980 dated 22.10.1997. However, in view of the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court, the plot in question was restored in the name of complainant through GPA Sohan Puri son of J.D. Puri, C-71, Inderpuri, New Delhi as per the General Power of Attorney submitted by him. Thus, the plot in question was restored in favour of complainant through GPA Sohan Puri son of J.D. Puri. On the application submitted by complainant, the plot in question was re-allotted to Surender Nanda vide memo No.1810 dated 28.03.2002. Thereafter, vide office memo No.2412-13 dated 24.01.2003, the complainant was asked to visit the office of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon but the complainant did not turn up and voided to visit the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon. Surender Nanda allotted of the plot in question, transferred the plot in favour of Vinay Mangla after executing necessary documents and re-allotment was made in favour of Vinay Mangla after completing necessary formalities. Sale-deed was also executed by Surender Nnda in favour of Vinay Mangla. No Dues Certificate and Non-encumbrance certificate was issued to Vinay Mangla vide office Memo No.1001 and 1002 dated 02.12.2004. Occupation Certificate was issued to Vinay Mangla vide office memo No.SDE(1) 2747 dated 06.04.2005.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that after restoration of the plot in question by Honble Supreme Court, the complainant had written a letter dated 31.01.2003 in response to the letter dated 24.01.2003 received from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon whereby the complainant had demanded the supply of all documents demanded earlier so that the complainant could reply in a proper manner but the opposite parties did not reply the said letter. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint.
The complaint was contested by the opposite parties on the above stated ground and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum finding no substance in complainants version, dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Admittedly, the plot in question was allotted to the complainant in the year 1993 and thereafter the aforesaid allotment was cancelled by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 21.03.1997. The order passed by Honble High Court was modified by Honble Apex Court in the year 2001 and the plot was restored to the complainant. It has also come on the record that GPA was executed by the complainant regarding the plot in question in favour of Sohan Puri and the fact that the complainant had not visited the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon who had asked the complainant to appear in his office. Thus, on this count, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
It has also come on the record that the plot in question was re-allotted in favour of Surender Nanda who later on transferred the same in favour of Vinay Mangla and occupation certificate was issued in favour of Vinay Mangla. The aforesaid persons were not impleaded as party by the complainant.
The other relevant aspect of the case is that this Commission has already observed that if the plot is allotted under Discretionary Policy, then any dispute with respect to the plot in question cannot be termed as a consumer dispute. Reference is made to the judgment dated 21.01.2011 passed by this Commission in Appeal No.164/2008 titled as HUDA vs Sukh Ram and appeal No.165/2008 titled as HUDA vs Jora Ram wherein it has been observed that:-
they were to be given plots under a special scheme known as Discretionary Quota as the scheme was floated by the Government of Haryana to oblige kith and kin and therefore the persons getting such a special credit, cannot be said to be Consumers As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions we are of the considered view that the complainants are not entitled for allotment of plots and the District Consumer Forum has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts of the case in its true perspective.
This case is fully covered by our earlier decision in Sukh Rams and Jora Rams cases (Supra). Thus, in view of our earlier decision, the complainant cannot be termed as a Consumer.
In view of our aforesaid discussion, finding no merit in this appeal. it is dismissed.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 09.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member