National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nagar Palika, Nathdwara vs Vikram on 26 February, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1232 OF 2011 (From the order dated 06.01.2011 in First Appeal No. 602/2006 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Nagar Palika, Nathdwara, through its Commissioner/Chairman, Nagar Palika Board, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan) ... Petitioner Versus 1. Vikram s/o Sh. Kishan Pal Paliwal 2. Kishan Lal s/o Shri Kanju Lal Paliwal both r/o Dhora Mohalla, Pipli Chabutra, Kankroli, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan). Respondent(s)
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Davendra Mohan Mathur, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 26TH FEBRUARY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.01.2011, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 602/2006, Nagar Palika, Nathdwara versus Vikram & Anr. vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 16.12.2005 allowing the consumer complaint no. 149/2005 filed by the present respondent, was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that the mother of respondent no. 1 Vikram and respondent no. 2 Kishan Lal, got allotted two plots of land measuring 18 ft. X 37 ft., total 666 sq. ft. from the petitioner Nagar Palika, Nathdwara and deposited the necessary amount of `425/- vide receipts no. 141 and 143 dated 16.02.1983. The site maps for carrying out construction on the said plots were also sanctioned by the petitioner on 01.07.1983 on deposit of the necessary fees. However, the actual possession of the plots could not be handed over to the allottees as some other persons were found to be having possession on the spot. An assurance was given to the allottees that some other plots will be allotted to them, but it was not done. The complainants filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat whereupon the Chairman of the Board was authorised to allot the plot to the complainants.
However, no plot was allotted to them.
They filed the complaint in question, asking for the allotment of the plot and also suitable compensation of `90,000/-. The District Forum vide their order dated 16.12.2005 allowed the complaint and directed that the possession of the allotted plots measuring 18 X 37 ft., total area 666 sq. ft., should be handed over to them within two months of passing the order. In case, it was not possible to allot the plots then plots may be allotted at any other place. An appeal filed by the petitioner Nagar Palika before the State Commission was dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.
3. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner, as stated in the reply to the consumer complaint says that the physical and actual possession was handed over to the complainants/respondents by the petitioner and permission for construction was also granted. Such permission is granted only when the possession has already been given. However, due to non-construction on the plots in question, the possession was taken over by some other persons. In fact, the complainants did not take any action for 22 years after the allotment of plots. They had filed the consumer complaint only to put pressure on the petitioner for allotment of another plot.
4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the impugned order had been passed without going through the entire submissions made by the petitioner in the appeal filed before them. The orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum were contrary to law and facts. It has been stated in the complaint that a plot was allotted in the name of the mother but the mother has not been made a party in the proceedings before the Consumer Fora and hence the impugned order were perverse in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel reiterated that the possession of the plot in question had been handed over to the allottees just after the allotment and sanction for construction had also been given, but due to total inactivity on their part for 22 years, some other persons had taken possession of the land. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, stated that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and should be sustained.
5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission indicates that the State Commission has dealt with the position of non-production of evidence by the petitioner before the District Forum and held that the petitioners could not satisfy them as to why proper representation was not made before the District Forum.
However, it is made out that the State Commission have not touched upon the other issues raised in the memo of appeal before them. A copy of memo of appeal no. 602/2006 filed by the present petitioner Nagar Palika, Nathddwara, has been placed on record. A few extracts from the grounds of appeal reads as follows:-
3. That the respondents themselves filed the complaint whereas they themselves have mentioned in the complaint that the plots were allotted to their mother and mother of the respondents is not a party to the complainant; and why she has not been impleaded party has not been explained and no ground has been taken to this effect. The respondents have concealed true position regarding their mother and have filed the baseless complaint.
4. That it has nowhere been mentioned in the complaint as to in what capacity the respondent no. 2 has filed it and what locus standee he has come with. Even as per own submissions of respondent no. 2, he has no relation of consumer with appellant because, mother of respondent No. 2 got the plots allotted in her own name, she herself deposited the amount of surety with the appellant. The respondent no. 2 has nothing to do with it. There is also no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent no. 2.
In such situation the complaint itself has been filed erroneously; still the learned Forum below without considering those facts has passed the order impugned, which deserves to be quashed.
5. That the Forum below first of all ought to have decided the question of relation of consumer between appellant and respondent no. 2, but it has not been done by Forum below though the respondent no. 2 has also not claimed himself as beneficiary..
6. It is quite obvious from the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the entire record that the main issues in the present case relate to the question, whether the complaint was not maintainable in view of the fact that mother of respondent no. 1 was not made a party. Another important issue to be determined is whether the contention of the petitioner that possession was handed over to the allottees immediately after allotment is true or not? These issues and other issues given in the memo of appeal should have been gone into in depth by the State Commission and they should have given their clear-cut findings on all issues before pronouncing their order.
In the interest of justice, therefore, it is necessary that all the issues raised in the appeal are touched upon and proper finding be given on each issue. In the absence of such exercise being completed, there is likely to be a grave miscarriage of justice, which should be avoided.
7. In the light of the discussion above, we have no alternative but to set aside the impugned order and to remand the case back to the State Commission with the direction that they should hear both the parties and give their clear-cut findings on the issues involved, and we order accordingly. The revision petition in question, is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29th May 2014 for further proceedings.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/