Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Succinctly the facts of the case are that one Dina Nath son of Shri Nand Lal was a Member of opposite party No.1-Atam Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (in short, "the Society"), who was allotted plot No.990-D measuring 250 square yards under membership registration No.R480/567. On his death, the said plot was succeeded by Kulbhushan Nath and Smt. Savitri Sharma. Smt. Savitri Sharma surrendered her rights in the plot in favour of Shri Kulbhushan Nath, who became sole allottee of Plot No.990-D under membership No.1452 in the records of opposite party No.1-Society. Thereafter, Kulbhushan Nath transferred this plot in favour of the complainant, vide membership No.1452. Opposite party No.1- Society issued 'No Dues Certificate' to the complainant on 6.9.2007. The land of opposite party No.1-Society was acquired by appellant- opposite party No.2 i.e. Ludhiana Improvement Trust (in short, "the Trust"). Consequently, 50% of the acquired land was exempted by the State Government of Punjab, vide notification dated 21.9.1982. Thereafter opposite party No.2-Trust required opposite party No.1- Society to pay development charges and exemption fee, as mentioned in the letter and that the plots, list of which was appended with allotment letter No.11308 dated 3rd February 1983, were to be allotted by opposite party No.1-Society to its Members. Opposite party No.1-Society allotted plots to the Members including plot No.990-D, which was mentioned at serial No.55 of the list. The Society acted as intermediator between its Members and opposite party No.2-Trust. Thereafter the complainant paid all the dues as demanded by opposite party No.1-Society and nothing was payable qua the plot in question to the Society. The complainant requested opposite party No.1-Society to give demarcation of the plot and to hand over vacant possession. However, no possession was delivered to the complainant. The matter was taken up with the Trust and the Society but to no effect. Hence the Trust and the Society have committed deficiency in service on which the present complaint has been filed seeking directions against them to hand over the possession of the allotted/alternative plot to him. Compensation and costs were also prayed.

5. Opposite party No.1-Society in its reply took preliminary objections that the complainant is not a 'consumer' and as such, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1-Society. Plot in question was allotted by opposite party No.2-Trust and on the basis of the same, opposite party No.1-Society made further allotment to the complainant. Opposite party No.1-Society simply acted as intermediator and no liability can be fastened on it. Possession of the plot was to be delivered by opposite party No.2-Trust. The complainant has grievance of non-delivery of possession and demarcation of the plot since 1983. He slept over the matter for 24 years and as such, the complaint is time barred. Opposite party No.1-Society wrote many letters to opposite party No.2-Trust to give demarcation and possession of the balance plots, as allotted vide letter No.11308 dated 3.2.1983. Though majority of the plots have been given by opposite party No.2-Trust, yet there are few plots, possession of which has not been handed over by opposite party No.2-Trust to opposite party No.1-Society. Development charges and exemption fee were paid by opposite party No.1-Society to opposite party No.2-Trust on the basis of allotment letter dated 3.2.1983. Possession of number of plots has not been delivered by opposite party No.2-Trust to opposite party No.1-Society. Opposite party No.1-Society is not in possession of any plot as the possession was to be delivered by the Trust, so it cannot deliver possession. Dismissal of the complaint qua the Society has been prayed for.

11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.1-Society that the plot in question was allotted by opposite party No.2-Trust to opposite party No.1-Society and on the basis thereof, it made further allotment to the complainant. Opposite party No.1- Society simply acted as an intermediator and no liability can be fastened on it. Possession of plot is to be delivered by opposite party No.2-Trust. It has been so held by this Commission as well as by the Hon'ble National Commission in similar cases. It has been prayed that the appeal is not maintainable qua opposite party No.1- Society and the same may be dismissed accordingly.