State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaswant Singh vs Puda on 21 October, 2011
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.1176 of 2006
Date of institution: 14.09.2006
Date of decision : 21.10.2011
Jaswant Singh aged about 48 years son of Biru Ram resident of Mohalla Badi
Sarkar, Anandpur Sahib, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator,
PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar Mohali, District Mohali.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Anandpur Sahib,
District Ropar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 12.07.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : None
For respondent No.2 : Sh.Rajbir Wasu, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant had offered the bid for 2 booths in public auction held by the respondents on 6.10.2000. He was allotted booth No.75 measuring 207.28 square feet vide allotment letter dated 7.2.2001 for Rs.6,05,000/-. The appellant had made the entire payment and no due certificate was issued by respondent No.1 on 25.2.2002. Respondent No.1 had also issued the certificate of possession on 28.11.2003. The appellant submitted the site plan as per the rules and regulations First Appeal No.1176 of 2006 2 of the respondents for raising the construction of the booth. The permission was given to the appellant by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 9.2.2004.
2. It was further pleaded that the appellant had started raising construction of both the booths. It was checked by the Junior Engineer of respondent No.2. However, the high tension wires of the electricity were passing over the booth of the appellant and other booths of other persons. Respondent No.1 had undertaken at the time of auction that the high tension wires would be got removed within a period of one month from the date of auction and on this assurance of respondent No.1, the appellant had purchased the booth.
3. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 had failed to remove the high tension wires passing over the booth plots. The construction of the booth was started as Gurpreet Singh son of the appellant was to start the business but due to the high tension electricity wires passing over the booth, the appellant had to stop the construction in between.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant had given the applications to respondent No.1 on 18.8.2004 and to the electricity board on 25.10.2004. Another application was given to respondent No.1 on 4.2.2005 but no action was taken by any of the respondents.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant served the legal notice dated 5.9.2005 but in vain. Hence, the complaint seeking directions against the respondents to remove the high tension electricity wires passing over the booth plot of the appellant. Compensation and costs were also prayed. VERSION OF RESPONDENT NO.1
6. Respondent No.1 filed the written reply. The factual position was admitted. It was pleaded that necessary formalities i.e. shifting charges of high tension wires were already deposited by respondent No.1 with respondent No.2. Now it was the responsibility of respondent No.2 to shift the high tension wires. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
First Appeal No.1176 of 2006 3
7. Respondent No.2 also filed the written statement by way of affidavit. It was admitted that the appellant had filed an application before respondent No.2 for shifting the LT lines in question. Respondent No.2 had prepared the estimates. Notice was given to the appellant for making the payment of Rs.29,562/-. This amount was deposited with respondent No.2 on 7.12.2005. The electric lines in question would be shifted after withdrawing the material from the store.
8. It was further pleaded that the said lines feed the urban area and a lot of time is required to shift the same. It was not possible to dismantle the line unless a parallel line is erected. The work is under progress and the line would be shifted under the rules. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM
9. The appellant filed the affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh as Ex.C1 and the affidavit of Manoj Kumar as Ex.C2. The appellant also proved documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C9. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C10. On the other hand, respondent No.1 filed the affidavit of Dilraj Singh, Estate Officer as Ex.R1. Respondent No.1 also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R9.
10. The learned District Forum partly accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.2000/- vide impugned order dated 12.7.2006 and directed to respondent No.1 to make the payment of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant.
11. Hence, the appeal.
DISCUSSION
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant has suffered a huge loss and could not utilise the booth plot for such a long time. Hence, it was prayed that the amount of compensation be enhanced to Rs.1 lacs. Costs be also increased and interest be also given.
13. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 was that there was no merit in the present appeal and, therefore, it be dismissed qua respondent No.2.
14. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. First Appeal No.1176 of 2006 4
15. Since the appellant has pleaded that his son Gurpreet Singh was to start the business for earning his livelihood by self-employment, therefore, the appellant was a consumer qua the respondents.
16. The version of the appellant was that the high tension wires were passing over the booths were not got removed and as a result, the appellant could not raise the construction of the booths. He prayed for compensation.
17. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Sushila Devi Sharma, IV (2011) CPJ 3 (SC)" in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the relief granted to an auction purchaser. In the said judgment, the complainant had purchased the plot in an open auction. The basic amenities were not provided in that area. The complainant had claimed compensation from the development authority. It was accepted by the District Forum, Hisar. The appeal filed by the development authority in the State Commission was dismissed. The development authority had filed the revision petition. It was also dismissed by the Hon'ble National Commission and those judgments were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Devi's case (supra). It means, therefore, that Sushila Devi Sharma who had purchased the plot in an open auction was considered as a consumer.
18. In the present case, the respondents have taken the plea that the budget estimates were prepared for the removal of the LT lines passing over the booths of the appellant. The budget estimate for Rs.29,562/- was prepared. This amount was deposited by respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has already taken the necessary steps in the matter. Therefore, appropriate steps are being taken by the respondents for the removal of the high tension wires passing over the booths.
19. The learned District Forum has awarded the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- against respondent No.1 and he has also been awarded Rs.2000/- as First Appeal No.1176 of 2006 5 costs of proceedings. Therefore, the compensation awarded is reasonable and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.
20. In view of the discussions held above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed. If respondent No.1 fails to make the payment of the compensation/costs within a period of 2 months after the receipt of a copy of this order, then, respondent No.1 would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- with effect from today.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.10.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER October 21, 2011.
Paritosh