State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raminder Kaur vs Improvement Trust Ludhiana on 5 August, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1588 of 2014
Date of institution : 08.12.2014
Date of decision : 05.08.2015
Raminder Kaur wife of S. Gurbaksh Singh son of S. Kirpal Singh,
resident of H.No.339-D, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, Feroze Gandhi
Market, Ludhiana, through its Chairman.
2. Gobind Kumar (working in the Ludhiana Improvement Trust,
Ludhiana, as Mali) C/o The Ludhiana Improvement Trust,
Ludhiana, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Punjab.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
23.09.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Jaideep Verma , Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant, Raminder Kaur, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by her against the First Appeal No.1588 of 2014 2 respondents/opposite parties, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed as barred by time.
2. As per the allegations made in the complaint, opposite party No.1 allotted plot, in dispute, bearing No.399-D, measuring 100 square yards, situated in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, to one Hira Bahadur, who was employed with opposite party No.1- Improvement Trust and was the father of opposite party No.2, vide allotment letter dated 12.06.1984. That Hira Bahadur sold the plot to the complainant for consideration and executed Agreement to Sell dated 06.11.1985 after receiving the full and final payment. In addition to that, Hira Bahadur executed a Will in her favour and Power of Attorney in favour of her husband. The possession of the plot was handed over to her at the time of the execution of those documents after the full and final payment was made. The remaining instalments of the plot were paid by her to opposite party No.1. However, the ownership of the plot was not transferred in her name in the records of that opposite party. She constructed a house after getting the plan sanctioned and also obtained water, electricity and sewerage connections. Even the Ration Card in her name and in the names of her family members was issued at the address of this property itself; wherein she is residing with her family. Said Hira Bahadur died on 02.01.1996 and after his death, she got the Will registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. She applied to opposite party No.1 for the transfer of ownership of this plot in her name and the job card was issued in her favour. However, that opposite party kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. In between, First Appeal No.1588 of 2014 3 opposite party No.2 moved an application in the shape of objection with opposite party No.1 for not transferring the plot in her name without his consent, who is stated to be the real son of Hira Bahadur and is working as gardener with opposite party No.1. In fact, opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.2,00,000/- illegally from her for transferring the plot in her name. By not transferring the plot in her name, opposite party No.1 committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; as a result of which she suffered mental tension, harassment, pain, agony and loss of time and for the same, she is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/-, as compensation, in addition to Rs.33,000/-, as cost of litigation. She prayed for issuance of directions accordingly to that opposite party, in addition to the direction to transfer the property (plot), in dispute, in her name.
3. At the time of preliminary hearing, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time and, as such, the same was dismissed on that ground, vide aforesaid order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
5. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complaint had been moved after 28 years of the date of accrual of the cause of action and, as such, was barred by time. The complaint was dismissed, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agriculture Industries) (I) (2009) CPJ-481. It was submitted by the First Appeal No.1588 of 2014 4 counsel for the complainant that the cause of action accrued to the complainant only after the death of Hira Bahadur, who had executed a Will in her favour and, as such, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by time. The complainant became the owner of the plot on the basis of Will, so executed in her favour by Hira Bahadur and the same was to be operative only after his death. The District Forum committed an illegality, while holding that the complaint had been filed after 28 years.
6. The complainant did not mention in her complaint, as to when the cause of action for filing the complaint accrued to her? The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the title in the immovable property cannot be transferred by means of Power of Attorney, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. For transferring that title, a noble way was devised by getting the Agreement to Sell, Will and Power of Attorney executed from the original owner Hira Bahadur. The title in the plot, in dispute, cannot be said to have been transferred on the basis of these documents. If it is to be taken that the title was transferred on the basis of those documents, then the cause of action, to get the plot transferred in her name in the records of opposite party No.1, accrued to the complainant on 06.11.1985 and, as such, it was correctly concluded by the District Forum that the complaint had been filed after 28 years.
7. If it is to be taken that the cause of action accrued on the death of Hira Bahadur, by virtue of the Will executed by him in favour of the complainant, even then the complaint cannot be said to have First Appeal No.1588 of 2014 5 been filed during the period of limitation of two years. The complainant herself alleged in the complaint that Hira Bahadur died on 02.01.1996. The complaint was filed in the year 2014 and, as such, was barred by time. Correct finding to that effect was recorded by the District Forum and there is no ground for upsetting that well reasoned finding. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. The arguments in this case were heard on 30.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER August 05, 2015 (Gurmeet S)