State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Shiv Kumar Sharma on 28 June, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 276 / 2010
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
I-229, Nehru Nagar Colony, Dehradun
through its Assistant Engineer Sh. Harphool Singh (Authorised Signatory)
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o late Sh. Ravi Dutt Sharma
R/o J-38, Phase-II
Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Ranipur
Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. S.K. Goyal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Rajesh Singh Rathore, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 28/06/2011
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 121 of 2010 and directing the opposite parties to convert the leasehold plot of the complainant to a freehold plot and to pay him damages of Rs. 10,000/- within a month from the date of the order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma was allotted a plot No. J-38 in BHEL's Cooperative Housing Scheme by the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (for short "Housing Board"). The complainant got a house constructed on the said plot of land along with a garage for parking 2 the scooter / car etc. After sometime, he applied to the Housing Board to convert the said plot to a freehold plot for which he was ready to pay the necessary charges, but the Housing Board did not take any action. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 09.04.2010. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 23.08.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad through opposite party No. 2 has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The appellant's contention is that the complainant had constructed a shop in his house which was not approved in the plan while the complainant's reply is that he had constructed a garage in his house as per the approved plan. The garage is being used as an Advocate's office by one of the member of the family who is an Advocate by profession. In evidence, the complainant referred to Paper No. 29, which is the photograph of the said construction (garage or shop) and on the top of the shutter, "Office - Bhawna Kaushik, Advocate" is written. The appellant rebutting the reply of the complainant said that in the photograph, the shutter is down and, thus, the complainant has hidden the shop inside it.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the complainant is being harassed by the appellant. Generally, the officials of the Housing Board check from time to time whether the construction is being made as per the approved plan or not. If any part of the construction is found against the approved plan, the person is asked to 3 demolish such construction. In this case, the appellant never issued any such notice. Vide the letter dated 04.04.2006 (Paper No. 28), the appellant has asked the complainant to remove the shop. The notice is not to the effect that the shop be demolished. Further, it has not been made clear by the appellant whether it was a grocer's shop or a shop dealing with other items. The appellant was also free to take the photograph of the shop when it was open and to produce the same before the Forum in evidence. Since the Advocates also use shops in the market for their office, it appears that the appellant also treated it as a shop. But such a use of the garage can not be said to be a use for the commercial purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sasidharan Vs. M/s Peter and Karunakar and others; AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1700, has held that the office of lawyer or of firm of lawyers is not a commercial establishment. Whatsoever be the fact, but the appellant has failed to produce any conclusive evidence in support of its contention that the complainant was running a shop in the garage. Therefore, this appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
6. Appeal is dismissed. Order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the District Forum is confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant - respondent towards cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order in addition to sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) K