State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sadhu Singh vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana on 31 May, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1115 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 31.08.2006.
Date of Decision: 31.05.2011.
Sadhu Singh S/o Sh. Teja Singh S/o Sh. Bishan Singh, Now Residing at
1565, Urban Estate, Sector-39, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its Chairman.
2. The Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.
.....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
05.04.2006 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate.
For the respondents: Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Sadhu Singh, appellant/applicant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 05.04.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed an application for taking appropriate action against the respondents for willful disobedience/non- compliance of the order passed by the District Forum on 23.07.2001. It was submitted that the appellant filed a complaint against the respondents for allotment of a plot, being a local displaced person and the same was First Appeal No. 1115 of 2006 2 disposed of by the District Forum vide order dated 23.07.2001, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant as per the rules and in case, he is found entitled to the allotment being a local displaced person, then to allot the plot to him and the compliance was to be made within two months.
3. The order was passed by the District Forum way back on 23.07.2001 and a period of two months was granted to the respondents to comply with the said directions but despite that, the respondents have not complied with the directions and have not allotted any plot till date to the appellant, nor have informed the appellant that the respondents have considered the claim of the appellant. The disobedience on the part of the respondents is willful and intentional and they are liable to be punished by sending them to prison and compelling them to comply with the directions given vide order dated 23.07.2001. It was prayed that the respondents be summoned and punished for disobedience of the order dated 23.07.2001 and they be further compelled to comply with the directions of allotting a plot to the appellant being a local displaced person.
4. No reply was filed and the District Forum vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2006, directed the respondent-Trust to pay Rs.4,000/- towards compensation to the appellant for not deciding the claim within the stipulated period and disposed of the application.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2006, the appellant/applicant has come up in appeal, praying that the impugned order is illegal and the respondents be directed to immediately allot to the appellant a plot of 500 sq.yds. in any developed scheme at Ludhiana, treating him as local displaced person. Besides this, the respondents be also punished for willfully disobeying and violating the order of the District Forum passed in complaint no.53 of 16.01.2001.
6. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for amendment of the appeal was filed and vide order dated 26th March, 2008, First Appeal No. 1115 of 2006 3 the application for amendment was allowed and the amended appeal filed with the application was taken on record.
7. In the amended appeal, the copy of the order dated 23.07.2001 in complaint no.53/16.01.2001 was annexed as Annexure-P1. Copy of the application for execution was annexed as Annexure-P2. Copy of the order passed by the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana dated 29.11.2005 was annexed as Annexure-P3. The response filed to the said order before the District Forum by the appellant was annexed as Annexure-P4. Copy of the impugned order dated 05.04.2006 passed by the District Forum in execution application no.107/14.09.2005 was annexed as Annexure-P5 and it was prayed that by accepting this appeal (composite appeal-cum-complaint), the respondents be directed to immediately allot a plot to the appellant within an area of 500 sq.yds. in any developed scheme at Ludhiana, treating him as a local displaced person and the respondents be also punished for disobeying and violating the orders of the District Forum passed in complaint no.53/16.01.2001.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the District Forum and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is a local displaced person and his land was acquired in the year 1971 and thereafter, he lodged the claim but the same was not settled and then the complaint was filed before the District Forum and the District Forum vide order dated 23.07.2001, directed the respondents to decide the claim filed by the appellant within two months. The said claim was rejected by the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vide its order dated 29.11.2005 and no reasoning was given, except that the signatures of the appellant differed on various documents filed by him before the respondent-Trust. It was further contended that this Commission by allowing the amendment, has allowed the appeal against the original compliant also and the respondents be directed to First Appeal No. 1115 of 2006 4 allot the plot as the appellant is a local displaced person. It was further argued that the rejection of the claim after about four years without any application of mind, amounts to doing injustice and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the appeal may be accepted and the respondents be directed to allot a plot of 500 sq.yds. to the appellant.
10. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the Chairman of the respondent-Trust in its order dated 29.11.2005, has given the detailed reasons for rejecting the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out Para-2 of the order passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Trust, wherein it was mentioned that the appellant never applied before the Ludhiana Improvement Trust for allotment as a local displaced person within the stipulated period and the deposit of amount without permission does not entitle him to any plot. It was further contended that the claim of the appellant is already time barred and now by filing these applications/appeal, he cannot be permitted to extend the limitation. It has further argued that the earlier rules were repealed and the applicant did not file the application along with the requisite deposits within three years of the coming into force of new rules and now he cannot claim any benefit. Learned counsel has relied upon "Pawan Kumar Puri & Ors. Vs The Improvement Trust, Batala & Anr.", 2003(3) R.C.R (Civil)-824 (P & H).
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the material placed on record.
12. Admitted facts are that as per notification U/s 36 of the Act, the Truck Stand Scheme was published on 11.12.1970 and the award was announced on 24.03.1972 and the applications from the Local Displaced Persons were invited upto 30.07.1973. The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, bearing no.53/16.01.2001 and the same was decided on 23.07.2001 by the District Forum, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant as per the rules and in case, the appellant was found First Appeal No. 1115 of 2006 5 entitled to allotment being a local displaced person, to allot him a plot and compliance of order be made within two months.
13. The respondents did not comply with the order within two months, nor considered the claim of the appellant and ultimately, the appellant filed the application on 14.09.2005 for taking action against the respondents for non compliance of the order dated 23.07.2001, on which the District Forum passed the order under appeal.
14. On filing of this application, respondent no.2-Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana passed the order dated 29.11.2005, rejecting the claim of the appellant and vide order dated 05.04.2006 under appeal, the District Forum awarded the compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the appellant for not deciding the claim within the stipulated period and the execution application was disposed of.
15. The claim of the appellant has been considered and the same has been rejected by respondent no.2 and the compensation has been awarded for not complying with the order passed by the District Forum in original complaint.
16. Although, this Commission ordered vide order dated 26.03.2008 that the amended appeal be filed, but there is no evidence before this Commission, to decide the entitlement of the appellant regarding the plot. The claim of the appellant was rejected by the chairman of the respondent-Trust on 29.11.2005. Perusal of the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by respondent no.1 clearly shows that the Chairman of respondent no.1 has discussed in detail and has passed a speaking order and it is clearly mentioned that the applications from the local displaced persons were invited upto 30.07.1973, but the appellant Sadhu Singh never applied for allotment as 'local displaced person' within the stipulated period i.e. till 30.07.1973. He suo-moto deposited Rs.500/- with the Trust and he never obtained any permission from the Trust for the deposit of the said amount, nor he applied on a prescribed Form-A First Appeal No. 1115 of 2006 6 along with affidavit, as such, the appellant is not entitled to the allotment of plot as local displaced person as per rules, being time barred claim.
17. The perusal of the above order shows that the detailed reasoning has been given and the appellant never applied within the stipulated time. The appellant after lapse of the time, has tried to create limitation by depositing Rs.500/- of his own, without seeking any permission or without getting the delay condoned for filing the application from the competent authority and later on, some correspondence was made by the respondents with the appellant, but that in no way extend the limitation or stipulated period for making application. In case Pawan Kumar Puri & Ors. Vs The Improvement Trust, Batala & Anr.(supra), Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court under similar circumstances, rejected the application on account of unreasonable delay.
18. The District Forum vide order dated 23.07.2001 passed in original complaint, directed the respondents to consider the claim within two months, but the same was not considered and thereafter, the execution was filed and vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2006, respondent no.1 was directed to consider the claim of the appellant and for not considering the claim within the stipulated period, Rs.4000/- were imposed as costs. Before passing of the impugned order dated 05.04.2006, respondent no.1 considered the claim and passed the order dated 29.11.2005 and as discussed above, it is a speaking and detailed order and if in the later part, something has been discussed about the difference in the signatures, that is not sufficient to set aside the order as the complete reasoning has been given for rejection of the claim of the appellant and the same is legal and valid and there is not merit in the appeal (including the amended appeal).
19. The sole purpose of the appellant seems to grab the plot somehow or the other because the prices have gone up and he woke up from a long slumber and started the litigation knowingly well that his claim is totally time barred and he is not entitled for any allotment but despite that, he First Appeal No. 1115 of 2006 7 dragged the respondents in unnecessary litigation and he is required to be burdened with special costs.
19. In view of above discussion, the appeal (including amended appeal) filed by the appellant is dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and the impugned order dated 05.04.2006 under appeal passed by the District Forum and the order dated 23.07.2001 passed in original complaint, are affirmed and upheld. Amount of costs shall be paid by the appellant to the respondents within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
20. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.05.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could no be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member May 31, 2011.
(Gurmeet Singh)