State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satyawati Widow Of Shri Chaman Lal vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 6 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1474 of 2010
Date of institution : 19.8.2010
Date of decision : 6 .9.2010
Satyawati widow of Shri Chaman Lal s/o Shri Nathu c/o M/s Nathu Ram Chaman
Lal, Kesar Ganj Mandi, Ludhiana.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Chairman.
2. Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 3.8.2010 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri S.S. Salar, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents for allotment of a plot claiming to be a locally displaced person. That complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum") vide order dated 12.9.2000. The appellant had filed appeal (First Appeal No.1423 of 2003) on 22.10.2003. It was accepted by this Commission vide order dated 29.5.2007 and it was observed that this appeal was covered by the judgment dated 23.5.2007 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.11 of 2006 (Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab). As per the judgment in Nachhattar Singh's case (supra) the appellant was held entitled to a plot measuring 500 sq. yards in Teachers Colony Scheme. It was also directed that if the plot was not available in Teachers Colony Scheme then the plot may be allotted in any other Scheme.
First Appeal No.1474 of 2010. 2
2. Thereafter the appellant had filed the execution application on 3.3.2008 and the executing court directed the respondents to allot a plot measuring 500 sq. yards in Maharishi Balmik Colony, Ludhiana. The respondents had accordingly allotted a plot no.230-F measuring 500 sq. yards in Maharishi Balmik Colony to the appellant vide allotment letter dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure A4). Thereafter the appellant filed another execution application (E.A. No.15 of 2009) in the learned District Forum. This execution application was disposed of by the learned District Forum vide order dated 11.6.2009 in which it was specifically mentioned that the directions for the allotment of a plot already stood complied with by the respondents. It was also noticed in that order that the earlier execution application filed by the appellant was consigned to record room on 20.12.2008.
3. The appellant had filed a third execution application (E.A. No.94 of 25.5.2010). It was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 3.8.2010 with the observations that since the allotment of plot had already been made by the respondents to the appellant, therefore, there was no question of taking any action against the respondents under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. Hence this appeal.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that neither the respondents are accepting the demand draft for Rs.7,48,800/- dated 19.6.2009 nor the possession of the plot has been given to her. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 3.8.2010 be set aside. It was further prayed that the respondents be directed to accept the amount and to handover the possession of the plot to her.
6. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on the file letter of allotment dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure A-4) issued by the respondents in favour of the appellant allotting plot No.230-F, measuring 500 sq. yards in Maharishi Balmiki Nagar Scheme, Ludhiana in pursuance of the judgment dated 19.5.2007 passed by First Appeal No.1474 of 2010. 3 this Commission in favour of the appellant in First Appeal No.1423 of 2003. The price of this plot was charged by the respondents at the rate of Rs.5,160/- per sq. yard on provisional basis. The total amount of the plot was Rs.25,80,000/-.
8. It was also specifically stated in clause 1 of the allotment letter dated 2.2.2009 that if the allottee wanted to deposit one-fourth of the plot price it came out to Rs.6,45,000/- plus 4% cess charges to the tune of Rs.1,03,200/- and this amount was to be deposited within 30 days from the date of allotment i.e. 2.2.2009. It was also specified in clause 2 of the allotment letter dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure A-4) that if the allottee failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period then the allottee would pay interest at the rate of 13% per annum in the first month, 14% per annum in the second month, 15% per annum in the third month, 16% per annum in the fourth month, 17% per annum in the fifth month and 18% per annum if the delay was more than five months i.e. 6th month onwards.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant had prepared the bank draft for an amount of Rs.7,48,800/- on 19.6.2009 and had deposited the same with the respondents on 22.6.2009. However the receipt was not issued by the respondents. Hence the respondents be directed to issue the receipt.
10. This submission has been considered.
11. In para 4 of the execution application (Annexure A2) it is pleaded by the appellant that the bank draft for Rs.7,48,800/- dated 19.6.2004 was deposited in the office of the respondents on 22.6.2009 vide receipt no.5473 and receipt is not issued but in para 5 it is pleaded that notice dated 12.11.2009 was sent to the respondents for non-acceptance of 1/4th price of the plot. These are two contradictory pleadings.
12. Moreover the amount of Rs.7,48,200/- was to be deposited by the appellant with the respondents within 30 days from 2.2.2009. It means it was to be deposited upto 1.3.2009. The appellant was sleeping over the matter and First Appeal No.1474 of 2010. 4 she went to the respondents to tender the demand draft of Rs.7,48,800/- on 22.6.2009 i.e. more than 3 months after the due date. It means, therefore, that the appellant had become liable to pay interest under clause 2 of the allotment letter dated 2.2.2009. Hence the respondents were justified in refusing to accept this amount when this amount was not tendered within the time stipulated in clause (1) of the allotment letter dated 2.2.2009 and when the interest was not being deposited along with the first installment in terms of Clause (2) of the allotment letter dated 2.2.2009.
13. The appellant does not appear to be a law abiding citizen. She does not comply with the terms of the allotment letter. Neither she had deposited the money in terms of clause (1) of the allotment letter dated 2.2.2009 nor she had tendered interest which had fallen due in terms of clause (2) of the allotment letter dated 2.2.2009.
14. Rather she is misusing the law by dragging the respondents to the court of law, obtains stay order and then pleads that the period of stay order should be excluded from counting the delay caused by her in depositing the amount. This approach is totally unwarranted and illegal.
15. So far as the possession of the plot is concerned, it is nowhere pleaded in the execution application Annexure A-2 that the possession has not been delivered by the respondents to her. Learned counsel for the appellant was directed to point out the para where it was pleaded in the execution application that possession of the plot was not handed over to the appellant. He admitted that it is nowhere pleaded in the execution application Annexure A-2 (which is wrongly numbered by her as 199 of 2.3.2000) that possession of the plot was not handed over to the appellant. No doubt this execution application appears to have been filed in 2010 because even the facts which had taken place on 29.5.2007, 3.3.2008, 2.2.2009, 11.6.2009 and 13.7.2009 have been stated in this execution application.
16. By filing the third successive execution application against the respondents the appellant is dragging the respondents to litigation unnecessarily and by filing First Appeal No.1474 of 2010. 5 this appeal without any basis the appellant has wasted the valuable time of this Commission.
17. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine with costs of Rs.30,000/- which shall be deposited by the appellant with the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents would be entitled to execute this order against the appellant in accordance with law.
18. The arguments in this case were heard on 31.8.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 6 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER