National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gurnam Singh, Narain Dass Budhi Raja, ... vs Chandigarh Administration, Through ... on 29 November, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(President)
1. Request for adjournment from Mr. Arun Dogra, counsel for the appellant in FA No. 31 is declined. Ground for adjournment is that the counsel is busy "in a marriage in the family which is fixed for 1.12.2002 and, thus unable to attend the court to argue the matter" The appels were adjourned on 22.10.2002 to this date in the presence of Mr. Dogra himself. Date of marriage is not fixed Administration who was impleaded as first opposite party objected to its impleadment on the ground that it had nothing to do with the cost of the plot or development of the area. In the impugned judgment, however, it is recorded on the statement of counsel for the Municipal Corporation that 'Chandigarh Administration had passed on the responsibility of providing basic amenities and to develop the area in question to the Municipal Corporation, UT Chandigarh". It would, therefore, appear that Chandigarh Administration was neither necessary nor appropriate party in the complaint. We also noticed from the impugned judgment that the State Commission while issuing notice on the complaints had stayed recovery of lease money and interest till further orders. This, it appears, was by way of interim order which for that matter any Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to pass any interim orders.
2. Be that as it may, alleging deficiency in service for not developing the area and providing basic amenities complaints were filed. A direction was sought to the Municipal Corporation to develop the area i.e. by providing essential requirements such as 'metalled approach roads, street lights, parking place, electricity and water supply as per the master plain'. It was stated that this was the commitment which was given to the complaint at the time of auction was held. A further direction was also sought that Municipal Corporation be directed not to raise any further demand of last installment due from the complainant having already made major portion of the auction amount and till such time that complainant is able to utilise the site and area becomes commercially viable. It is not necessary for us to record further prayers. The basic prayer is for a direction for development of the area and till then requiring the Municipal Corporation not to charge any further amount in terms of the letter of allotment. In support of its claim, complainant had also filed his affidavit.
3. In the written version filed by the Municipal Corporation the allegation made by the complainant were denied. It was pleaded that the development of the site had no nexus with the payment of installment as per the allotment letter. Any assurance alleged to have been given by the Municipal Corporation at the time of auction and as alleged by the complainant was denied. It was stated that the plea of the complainant that the area lacks basic facilities/amenities was false "as the other show rooms are running at the site". The fact that the area had not been developed was also denied and it was asserted that basic amenities like sewer lines, road, etc have been provided for to the complaint. Bona fide of the complainant itself was disputed and it was submitted that the complaint was filed only to avoid making payment of the balance amount. From the written version it would been seen that the stand of the Municipal Corporation is as vague as it could be. Written version lacks particulars, does not state as to when the area was developed and basic amenities were provided. Complainant has also not stated the facts clearly. When constructions have comes up in the area we could not understand how this could have been done without there being electricity and water. In a letter dated 23.6.99 filed by two or the complainants and addressed to the Municipal Corporation it is mentioned that the area is not developed and there were no sewerage and other facilities. But then it is also stated that even during the period of construction they had faced lot of difficulty in getting water. Again it is mentioned in that letter that there was no provision of electric connection in that area and 'due to which we are facing lot of difficulty in getting the electricity connection to our SCFs'.
4. We are unable to find from the impugned order as to what evidence, if any was led by the parties. Perhaps in such a case, a Local Commissioner could have been appointed.
5. We find from the order of the State Commission that it had put in too Much effort to show from the preliminary objection of the Municipal Corporation that the complaint did not raise any consumer dispute. On this when the law is well settled the order did not require any detailed discussion. However, on the question of merit State Commission referred to the letter of allotment and also the fact that complainant had failed to prove any agreement that Municipal Corporation had agreed to develop the area and to provide basic amenities. State Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint. We do not think it was a right approach to adopt. Sometimes in a contract conditions which are obvious could be implied. It could not be said that Municipal Corporation, a statutory body auctioned a barren piece of site and would not have undertaken to develop the area to provide basic facilities like water, electricity, sewerage when the letter of allotments contains a term for construction of the site within a particular period. It was incumbent on the Municipal Corporation to develop the area and to provide basic amenities for construction to be made. The area development takes into account many factors and many enactments contained in the definition of development as well. We are unable to agree with the State Commission that since letter of allotment did not contain term regarding development of the area and provision of amenities and on that ground complainant would be non-suited.
6. We are, therefore constrained to set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission for it to decide the complaint in accordance with law after giving opportunities to the parties to lead further evidence if any.