State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Man Mohan Singh vs Huda on 22 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA PANCHKULA First Appeal No.860 of 2004 Date of Institution: 01.04.2004 Date of Decision: 22.07.2010 Man Mohan Singh son of Man Singh, resident of village Budwal, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh through his GPA Vijay Pal Singh son of Chander Singh, resident of Nangal Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonepat. ..Appellant/Complainant Versus 1. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panipat. 2. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula. .....Respondents/Opp. Parties BEFORE: Honble Mr.Justice R.S.Madan, President. Sh.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rohit Goswami Advocate for respondent. ORDER
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN PRESIDENT:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.02.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby complaint No.395 of 2002 filed by the appellant-complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of respondents-opposite parties for not delivering the physical possession of the plot after completing the development works in the area, has been dismissed.
It is the case of the complainant that he was not delivered actual physical possession of his plot No.3-P which was allotted to him in the year 1998. According to complainant the respondents-opposite parties did not complete roads electricity in Sector-18, HUDA, Panipat. Thus, attributing it a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant sought compensation from the opposite parties.
On the other hand the opposite parties denied the version of complainant by taking the plea that all the basic amenities like roads, electricity, sewerage and water supply had been provided in the area where the plot of the complainant is situated and it is the complainant who did not come forward to take possession of the plot. Denying any kind of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, it was prayed that complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum did not find any substance in the version of the complainant and dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 27.2.2004. Hence, this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
From the record, it is established that in the instant case Local Commissioner was appointed who reported that the wires on the poles had not been provided. The plot of the complainant is deep one. Main road from G.T. road is blocked. In our view the report of the Local Commissioner is not helpful to the complainant because as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, it is the duty of the allottee himself to level the plot by putting earth in uneven area and this liability cannot be fastened on the HUDA authorities.
Another question which requires consideration in the present appeal is that as per report of the Local Commissioner the wires were not erected on the electric poles. In this regard report Ex.R-8 is relevant which proved that FIR was recorded by the opposite party with respect to the theft of electricity wires and transformers in that sector. In other words the opposite parties had already erected the electricity lines in the sector. The complainant has miserably failed to prove that he ever applied to the electricity department for getting the electricity connection, therefore, the plea taken by the complainant cannot be believed that the opposite party had not provided electricity facility in the sector. All these aspects have been considered by the District Forum in the impugned order while dismissing the complaint.
No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
No merit. Dismissed.
22nd July, 2010 Justice R.S.Madan President Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member