State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Banmeet Singh Uppal vs Puda on 29 September, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2011
Date of institution : 9.9.2011
Date of decision : 29.9.2011
Banmeet Singh Uppal s/o Shri Surjit Singh Uppal, R/o H.No.2407, Sector 35-C,
Chandigarh.
....Complainant
Versus
1. PUDA, Mohali through its Estate Officer, Sector 62, PUDA Bhawan,
Mohali.
2. GMADA through its Addl. Chief Administrator, Sector 62, PUDA
Bhawan, Mohali.
3. PSPCL through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Mohali
......Opposite parties.
Consumer Complaint under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the complainant : Shri J.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Version of the complainant:
This complaint was filed by the complainant with the allegations that the grandfather of the complainant Surinder Singh Uppal (in short "the allottee") was allotted Plot No.118, Phase-XI, Mohali by the respondents on 9.12.1992. The allottee wanted to construct the house on this plot and to shift to Mohali. However there was a big electric transformer installed in front of the plot. Therefore it could not be constructed. The allottee had made representations to the respondents but they failed to remove the electric transformer. Rather the Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2011. 2 respondents imposed penalty on account of non-construction to the tune of Rs.3516/- plus Rs.65,189/-. These were deposited by the allottee against receipt dated 21.9.1999.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondents vide their letter dated 29.11.1999 addressed to the allottee admitted that the electric transformer was in front of plot No.118 but it was not removed by them. In order to escape from the penalty of non-construction fee, the allottee constructed one unit of the house in this plot but the front gate of the plot was blocked by the electric transformer. The sewerage connection was also given on 30.12.1999. The allottee died in the year 2000 and the electric transformer was still not removed.
3. It was further pleaded that after the death of the allottee, his widow (grandmother of the complainant) pursued the case. She made representations to the respondents and finally served the registered notice dated 26.3.2003 on the Additional Chief Administrator of the respondents. She also applied for the refund of Rs.75,159/-. Due to the negligence on the part of the respondents the house could not be constructed by the allottee during his life time or by his widow. Ultimately the plot was transferred in the name of the complainant by the respondents on 2.5.2006.
4. It was further pleaded that the complainant was entitled to compensation amount of Rs.15,30,000/- which he was forced to pay as rent for want of construction in the plot in question. Rs.30,00,000/- were prayed as compensation, Rs.70,825/- as refund, Rs.10,00,000/- for compensation on account of mental tension and harassment. Hence the complaint for compensation, refund and costs. Discussion:
5. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
6. It appears that the amount of compensation on account of rent and on account of mental tension/harassment has been highly exaggerated by the complainant in order to bring this complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2011. 3
7. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "Ratna Ghosh & Anr. v. Dr.P.K.Aggarwal & Ors. II (2010) CPJ 204 (NC)" in which it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission as under : -
"No basis or sufficient justification has been given for claiming exemplary damages of Rs.2,00,00,000 in addition to Rs.15,00,000 claimed for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life and we are, prima facie, of the opinion that a highly exaggerated claim has been made in so far as exemplary damages are concerned in order to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the original petitions is above Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the complainant should approach the appropriate Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction by making appropriate claim."
8. Therefore this complaint is dismissed as being not maintainable in this Commission.
9. However the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction by making appropriate claim.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
September 29, 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2011. 4