State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tej Kaur vs Puda on 19 April, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SCO NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH
Misc.Application No.800 of 2011
In/and
Appeal No.503 of 2011
Date of Institution : 17.3.2011
Date of Decision : 19.4.2011
Tej Kaur w/o Balwant Singh, resident of Village Balluana, Tehsil and District
Bathinda now residing at H.No.44-C, Phase III, Model Town, Bathinda.
.........Appellant
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority/Bathinda Development Authority
Bathinda, Development Authority, Bathinda, through its Administrator/Estate
Officer, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.
.........Respondent
Appeal against the order dated 23.12.2010
of District Consumer Forum, Bathinda.
BEFORE
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member PRESENT For the appellant : Sh.Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Misc.Application for delay This appeal was filed with the delay of 21 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed in which reasons have been given for not filing the appeal within time. The application is supported by an affidavit. Accepted subject to just all exceptions and the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. We have condoned the delay without issuing notice to the respondents for the view we are taking in the main case.
Main Case 2 Appeal 503/2011
3. Tej Kaur, appellant was the owner of Plot No.44-C measuring 500 sq.yards situated in Model Town, Phase III, Bathinda. Originally it was allotted to Reshma Rani who had sold the same to the appellant. It was transferred to her by the respondents vide letter no.1632 dated 4.4.2008. At the time of allotment, 10% additional amount was deposited with the respondents as per rules and regulations being a corner plot. This plot was allotted for a total price of Rs.26,50,000/- including 10% on account of plot being a corner plot.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondents had constructed the boundary wall alongside the plot in question. Therefore, the plot ceased to be a corner plot. It is now situated at the blind end due to which the appellant cannot enjoy the facilities attached with the corner plot. Therefore the appellant was entitled to the refund of 10% charged extra from the appellant/allottee. The respondents failed to do so. Hence the complaint.
5. The respondents filed the written reply. It was denied if the appellant was a consumer qua the respondents and that the complaint was barred by limitation. However it was admitted that Plot No.44-C, Phase III, Part II, measuring 500 sq.yards in Urban Estate, Bathinda was sold to M.L.Arora on 'as is where is basis'. It was transferred by the allottee in the name of Reshma Rani on the same terms and conditions which were a part of the original allotment letter. Said Reshma Rani further sold it to the appellant and the re-allotment was approved in favour of the appellant vide letter dated 4.4.2008. Therefore the appellant was bound by the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter.
6. It was further pleaded that the plot in question was a corner plot abutting on two roads as per report of District Town Planner. The appellant can utilize the facilities of a corner plot. No extra space is provided for corner plot and the owner/allottee is entitled to keep windows, ventilations 3 Appeal 503/2011 and a small gate (wicket gate) on it. The appellant had increased the height of the wall by raising further construction on it. The respondents have no objection if the appellant makes any construction on the said wall of the house and avail facilities of being a corner plot. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The parties produced affidavit/documents in support of their respective versions.
8. The District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide impugned order dated 23.12.2010. The respondents were directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant as compensation/costs. The respondents were also directed to demolish the wall constructed adjoining the plot of the appellant.
9. The appellant has filed this appeal for refund of 10% charged extra on account of plot being a corner plot.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the plot has ceased to be a corner plot as the respondents have constructed the wall. Hence it was prayed that the respondents were not entitled to charge 10% extra on account of the plot being a corner plot.
11. This submission has been considered.
12. First of all the complainant was filed by the appellant in the District Forum on 21.6.2010 whereas the plot was allotted by the respondents to the original allottee i.e. M.L.ARora on 4.11.2004.
13. Moreover the plot was sold to the allottee on 'as is where is' basis. The appellant being a transferee from the original allottee was governed by the same terms and conditions on which the plot was allotted to M.L.Arora. Therefore the appellant was not entitled to the refund of the extra money charged from the allottee on account of plot being a corner plot. 4 Appeal 503/2011
14. The learned District Forum has already ordered the demolition of the wall, therefore the hitch of the corner plot, if any, stands removed by the order of the District Forum. The corner plot does not mean that it should abut on the roads but it will remain a corner plot if there is an open area and there is no other plot on the one end of the allotted plot. Therefore the plot of the appellant continues to be a corner plot.
15. Moreover the complaint has been accepted by the learned District Forum and the appellant has already been awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation/costs. Therefore the appellant has already got adequate relief from the District Forum. The appellant is not entitled to any more relief.
16. We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.
17. The arguments in this case were heard on 8.4.2011 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
( JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL ) PRESIDENT ( MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA ) MEMBER ( BALDEV SINGH SEKHON ) MEMBER April 19, 2011 vr/-
5Appeal 503/2011