State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prithipal Singh vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 12 June, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.44 of 2006
Date of institution : 12.1.2006
Date of decision : 16.8.2011
Prithipal Singh S/o Kartar Singh now R/o Village & P.O. Chandikol, District
Cuttack, Orissa through special power of attorney Shri Darshan Singh s/o Lal
Singh, R/o Village Makar, Ludhiana.
.......Appellant
Versus
Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its
Chairman/Administrator.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 7.10.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Version of the appellant:
The appellant was allotted plot No.384-G measuring 125 sq. yards by the respondents for an amount of Rs.11,000/-. The entire amount of Rs.11,000/- was deposited by the appellants vide DD dated 8.1.1990 for which the respondents had issued the receipt dated 24.1.1990. The agreement fee was deposited by the appellant on 10.7.1995. The respondents again demanded an amount of Rs.4500/- as enhancement fee in the year 1999. It was also paid vide DD dated 21.1.1999 for which the respondents had issued the receipt dated 25.1.1999.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondents vide their letter dated 11.7.2000 had asked the appellant to submit special power of attorney duly attested. It was First Appeal No.44 of 2006. 2 also submitted by the appellant. The respondents vide letter dated 19.11.2001 also asked the appellant to submit the allotment letter along with other documents. It was also complied with by the appellants vide letter dated 6.12.2001. The respondents vide letter dated 13.8.2002 asked Darshan Singh attorney of the appellant to appear in the office of the respondents. Darshan Singh attorney visited the office on 27.8.2002. However nobody had met Darshan Singh in the office on that day as nobody was available in the office. Darshan Singh had written letter dated 27.8.2002 to the Executive Officer and Chairman of the respondents.
3. It was further pleaded that the respondents have illegally cancelled the plot of the appellant vide their letter dated 3.1.2003 and they finally refused to consider the request of the appellant vide letter dated 5.6.2003. Hence the complaint for a direction to the respondents for restoring the allotment of plot No.384-G to the appellant with possession. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. Version of the respondents:
4. The respondents filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the plot in favour of the appellant was cancelled vide resolution dated 29.1.1992. Therefore the complaint filed by the appellant on 17.5.2004 was barred by limitation. The cancellation was duly intimated to the appellant vide letter dated 11.3.1992 which was sent to him under postal certificate.
5. It was also pleaded that the respondents had again intimated the cancellation of the plot vide their letter dated 13.8.2001. Even the appellant had written the letter dated 29.8.2001 to the respondents that he received the intimation regarding the cancellation of the plot on 13.8.2000. This letter was duly signed by Darshan Singh attorney of the appellant. No sale agreement was executed by the appellant within 30 days from the letter of allotment nor he had complied with other conditions of the allotment letter. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
First Appeal No.44 of 2006. 3Proceeding before the District Forum:
6. Darshan Singh attorney of the appellant filed his affidavit dated 30.12.2004. He also proved documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19.
7. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of G.C. Garg, Executive Officer dated 26.2.2005. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R-4.
8. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 7.10.2005.
9. Hence the appeal.
Discussion:
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 7.10.2005 be set aside. It was also submitted that the second complaint was maintainable. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan" 2000(1)CLT 414.
11. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed with heavy costs.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. The appellant had filed the first complaint on the same cause of action which was got dismissed as withdrawn by him on 19.4.2004.
14. The present complaint was filed by the appellant through Darshan Singh attorney on 17.5.2004.
15. The power of attorney dated 21.5.1990 has been proved as Ex.C-3.
16. This power of attorney has been given by Prithpal complainant in favour of one Arvinder Singh son of Arjun Singh. Darshan Singh attorney, however, claims that he was appointed attorney by Arvinder Singh vide power of attorney dated 16.1.1998 (Ex.C-5). Prithipal Singh had not directly appointed Darshan Singh as his attorney. Power of attorney given by Prithipal Singh complainant to First Appeal No.44 of 2006. 4 Arvinder Singh on 21.5.1990 Ex.C-3 has been perused. Arvinder Singh attorney was not authorized to appoint further an attorney. Therefore the power of attorney allegedly given by Arvinder Singh in favour of Darshan Singh Ex.C-5 was not a legal and valid document and Darshan Singh was neither authorized by the appellant to file a complaint on his behalf nor he was competent to do so. Therefore Darshan Singh was not the attorney of Prithipal Singh.
17. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that Prithipal Singh had given his affidavit dated 13.5.2004 Ex.C-6 thereby acknowledging that Darshan Singh was his lawful attorney.
18. When the signatures of Prithipal Singh on the power of attorney dated 21.5.1990 Ex.C-3 are compared with the alleged signatures of Prithipal Singh on the affidavit dated 13.5.2004 Ex.C-6, it appears to be completely forged signatures. Therefore this document appears to be a forged document.
19. This view gets strength from the letter dated 2.4.2002 (Ex.R-4) which was sent by Darshan Singh alleged attorney to the respondents. Darshan Singh had stated in that application dated 2.4.2002 (Ex.R-4) that he was general attorney of Prithipal Singh. Said Prithipal Singh was residing in Azad Nagar, Ludhiana. He was alive. He (Darshan Singh) was not in a position to produce Prithipal Singh in the office of the respondents as he (Prithipal Singh) was demanding excessive money from him (Darshan Singh). When Darshan Singh alleged attorney himself admitted in his letter dated 2.4.2002 (Ex.R-4) that Prithipal Singh appellant was not appearing in the office of the respondents on his asking, therefore, the version of Darshan Singh that he was the attorney of Prithipal Singh is totally baseless and false. Moreover on 2.4.2002 Darshan Singh was alleging himself to be the attorney of Prithipal Singh while the alleged power of attorney has been given by Prithipal Singh in favour of Darshan Singh Ex.C-6 on 13.5.2004.
20. The version of Darshan Singh in his letter dated 2.4.2002 Ex.R-4 also clearly proves that the alleged power of attorney dated 13.5.2004 (Ex.C-6) is a totally forged document.
First Appeal No.44 of 2006. 5
21. Moreover Darshan Singh alleged attorney in his letter dated 29.8.2001 (Ex.R-3) addressed to the respondents had clearly stated that he received the information from the office of the respondents on 13.8.2000 that the plot was cancelled. It means, therefore, that Darshan Singh had the knowledge on 29.8.2001 (Ex.R-3) about the cancellation of this plot. The present complaint has been filed by him on 17.4.2004. Therefore it is clearly barred by limitation.
22. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "Syndicate Bank v. Bangalore Development Authority" 2002(3) CLT 291. The facts of that case were entirely different. Therefore that judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
23. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The respondents would be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.10,000/- from Darshan Singh alleged attorney of the appellant.
24. Although a criminal case of forgery is required to be got registered against Darshan Singh but we restrain ourselves from going that far.
25. The arguments in this case were heard on 9.8.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
26. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER August 16 , 2011 Bansal First Appeal No.44 of 2006. 6