State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sharanjit Singh vs Puda on 5 October, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. 30 of 2012
Date of institution: 21.05.2012
Date of decision : 05.10.2012
Sharanjit Singh s/o Sh. Tarlok Singh R/o 259, Urban Estate, Phase - II,
Jalandhar.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA Complex,
SCO No.41, Opp. Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar through its Executive
Officer.
2. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, Sector 63, Mohali
through its Chief Administrator.
...Respondents
3. Mahender Kaur w/o Sh. Tarlok Singh r/o 259, Urban Estate, Phase -
II, Jalandhar.
.....Proforma-Respondent
Revision Petition against the order dated
26.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the petitioner : None
For respondents No.1&2 : Sh. R.K.Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : None
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a revision petition under Section 17B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short the District Forum) vide which the application for directing the OP to provide documents and to allow the complainant-petitioner to Revision Petition No.30 of 2012 2 lead additional evidence was dismissed. The complainant-petitioner has also prayed for the transfer of the complaint from the Bench of the learned District Forum, Jalandhar to any other District Forum.
2. The facts of the case are that a plot was transferred in the name of the complainant on 6.8.2001. On 8.7.2010, he filed the present complaint alleging that the said plot was purchased by them on 22.6.2001, that they submitted a site plan to the OP for raising construction thereon showing the size of the plot as 20 feet x 45 feet as mentioned by the OPs. However, without the consent of the complainant, they re-shaped the plot with dimension 26 x 14/2 x 45 which is illegal, ultra vires without jurisdiction and arbitrary. The complainant, therefore, prayed for a direction to the OPs to allot another plot with measurement 20 feet x 45 feet or in the alternative pay him market price of the plot and also pay him Rs.1 lac towards deficiency in service mental tension and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OPs admitting that the plot was transferred in favour of the complainant which was, subsequently, re-shaped by them. Their contention is that they had the power to vary the size of the plot as per the spot and the complainant was liable to pay the price in accordance with the size of the plot. It was contended that they tried to adjust the complainant at some other place but due to non-availability of any other suitable plot, he was asked to re-submit the building plan in accordance with the size of the re-shaped plot.
4. The complainant closed his evidence on 9.3.2011 and the OP closed their evidence on 26.8.2011. The case was then fixed for arguments but on 7.10.2011, the counsel for the complainant Revision Petition No.30 of 2012 3 filed an application to direct the OPs to provide certain documents. The OP made a statement that the photo copy of the allotment letter would be provided by them and the same was placed on file on 2.2.2012. The case was then adjourned to 17.2.2012 for arguments and, thereafter, a couple of adjournments were granted for this purpose when the present application was moved by the counsel for the complainant to produce some more documents i.e. the departmental communications and names of allottees of plot No.1269 and 969. The said application was opposed.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum was of the opinion that the complainant was unnecessarily delaying the matter on one pretext or the other by filing these applications; that the documents sought by him has no relevance with the plot in dispute and therefore, the application was dismissed vide order dated 26.4.2012. The complainant has challenged the same through the present revision petition.
6. The petition was taken up on 31.5.2012 when the notice of the same was issued to the respondent and the counsel appeared for the OP on 7.8.2012. However, the counsel for the petitioner did not appear on that date and, therefore, the petition was adjourned to 3.10.2012 on which date again none appeared for the petitioner whereas the learned counsel for the OP-respondent was present. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and have perused the record.
7. The application of the complainant was dismissed on the ground that the documents sought by them have no relevance with plot No.1270 regarding which the complaint is pending before Revision Petition No.30 of 2012 4 the learned District Forum. The petitioner has not been able to show any relevance of the said documents through his revision petition. When the documents are not relevant, those cannot be ordered to be produced.
8. The complainant has already taken a number of adjournments for addressing arguments but instead of addressing arguments earlier one application was moved for additional evidence and when the said documents were produced by the OP, the present application was moved by him. The learned District Forum was of the view that he was unnecessarily delaying the disposal of the complaint. This observation does not appear to be wrong and is rather forfeited from the conduct of the complainant in moving the application after taking repeated adjournments for arguments. It, therefore, cannot be said, if the documents sought for have any relevance to the present complaint or there is any justification for allowing the application. The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly dismissed the application for additional evidence.
9. The mere fact that the application for additional evidence moved by the complainant has been dismissed cannot be a ground to transfer the complaint from one District Forum to another. It appears the complainant is aware of the weakness of the revision petition and that is why, he stopped pursuing it. We, therefore, do not find any merit in any of the requests made by the complainant-petitioner through this revision petition. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Revision Petition No.30 of 2012 5
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER October 05, 2012.
Paritosh