National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nagar Palika, Nathdwara vs Vikram & Anr. on 26 July, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2777 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 27/07/2015 in Appeal No. 602/2006 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. NAGAR PALIKA, NATHDWARA THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN, NAGAR PALIKA BOARD, NATHDWARA, DISTRICT RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VIKRAM & ANR. S/O KISHAN LAL PALIWAL, R/O DHORA MOHALLA, PIPLI CHABUTRA, KANKROLI, DISTRICT RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN 2. KISHAN LAL PALIWAL, S/O SHRI KANJU LAL PALIWAL, R/O DHORA MOHALLA, PIPLI CHABUTRA, KANKROLI, DISTRICT RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.M. Mathur, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kaushik Dey, Advocate
Dated : 26 Jul 2018 ORDER JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
Late Smt. Godavari Devi, mother of respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.2 was allotted two plots admeasuring 18'x37' by the petitioner Nagar Palika, Nathdwara. She deposited the price of the plots vide two separate receipts, both dated 16.02.1983. The case of the complainants is that the petitioner told her that the allotted plots were situated behind PWD Guest House and asked her to submit the plans for construction of building on them. The permission for construction of the building was accorded on 01.07.1983 and the requisite charges for this purpose were also deposited on 01.07.1983. This is also their case that the petitioner had assured them that alternative plots would be allotted to them. The matter was taken by the complainants before Lok Adalat and the petitioner informed the Lok Adalat on 29.03.2003 that the application of the complainants would be considered in the next meeting. However, the alternative plots were not allotted to them. The complainants therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking possession of the allotted plots and execution of the Lease Deed in their favour, besides compensation.
2. The petitioner filed a reply contesting the complaint and alleged that the possession of the plots had actually been handed over. It was also stated in its reply that permission for construction could be granted only after delivery of possession to the allottee. It was further alleged that since the allottee did not carry out construction, other persons took possession of the plots.
3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainants, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consumer complaint was time barred since the allotment was made in the year 1983 and the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2005. I however, find no merit in the contentions since the alleged failure of the petitioner to deliver possession of the plots despite having received the price of the plots, gave continuous/recurrent cause of action to the complainants to file consumer complaint seeking possession of the allotted plots.
5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainants cannot be said to be the consumers of the petitioner. The plots having been allotted to Smt. Godavari Devi, mother of respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.2 and both of them being her legal heirs, they step into her shoes and therefore, can be said to be the consumers of the petitioner.
6. On merits, no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner to prove that the possession of the plots had actually been given to Late Smt. Godavari Devi or any other person authorized in its behalf. The petitioner being a Municipality, would have issued possession letter to the allottee asking her to take possession of the plots allotted to her. No such possession letter has been produced by the petitioner. Moreover, had the possession of the plots been actually given to the allottee, written acknowledgment in token of having taken possession of the plots would have been taken from her by the officials of the petitioner Nagar Palika. No document evidencing delivery of possession to the allottee or to the complainants has been produced by the petitioner.
7. When this petition came up for hearing on 16.02.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner took adjournment to produce, if available, the possession letter whereby the possession of the plots was allegedly given to the allottee. No such possession letter could be produced on the next date of hearing. One more opportunity therefore, was given to the petitioner on 24.04.2018 to produce documents evidencing delivery of plots to the allottee. The Commissioner of the petitioner corporation was also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing alongwith the relevant record. When this matter came up for hearing on 13.07.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they have not been able to trace the documents evidencing delivery of possession of the plots to Smt. Godavari Devi. The petitioner was therefore, directed to file an affidavit of their Chairman stating that no such record was available with it. The petitioner was again directed to locate and bring the file in which the permission was allegedly granted to Smt. Godavari Devi for raising construction on the plots allotted to her.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that they have not been able to trace the file in which the permission to Smt. Godavari Devi for raising construction was granted. He further states that the petitioner has not been able to trace any documents evidencing delivery of the possession of the plots to the mother of the complainants or any other person authorized by her in this regard. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit of its Chairman Mr. Laal Ji Meena, stating therein that the record is not traceable. The affidavit of the Chairman to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
2. That this Hon'ble Commission directed the petitioner to produce the relevant document / the letter of allotment of the plot in question to the respondent complainant.
3. That the deponent directed the officials/ officers of the Nagar Palika to trace out the record of the case before him and put the relevant/ require letter so that it could be sent to this Hon'ble Commission.
4. That the employees/ officials of the Nagar Palika have tried several times to trace out the record of the case pertaining to the allotment of the plot in question in favour of the respondent complainant but they have not been able to the trace it out and produce before him.
5. That matter is pertaining to an old one. The proceedings of allotment were initiated way back in year, 1983 and thus, case has become as old as 22-23 years and during this period several times situation of office record has been changed from one room to another.
6. That since file pertaining to case in office of Nagar Nigam, Nathdwara out of which present revision petition has been brought before this Hon'ble Commission is not traceable and it is not available in office of Nagar Nigam, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan). Therefore, letter in question is not traceable for want of the record.
7. That since the officials/ officers in the office of the Nagar Nigam, Nathdwara have reported to the deponent that they have made all its best of efforts to locate the file of the record pertaining to the present revision petition, the letter is not traceable. The officials/ officers in the office of the Nagar Nigam, Nathdwara have reported that despite of all efforts, the record could not be traced out.
9. Since the petitioner has not been able to file any document evidencing delivery of possession of the plots to the allottee Late Smt. Godavari Devi or to the complainants or to any other person authorized in this behalf by Godavari Devi or by the complainants, I find no ground to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the fora below. The revision petition being devoid of any merits, is therefore, dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER