FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.206 of 2017 Date of Institution : 22.03.2017 Order reserved on: 21.08.2017 Date of Decision : 23.08.2017 Joginder Singh S/o S. Veer Singh R/o Village Kaler Khurd, Post Office Kaler Kalan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. ..Appellant/complainant Versus Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Housing Board Colony PUDA Bhawan, Green Avenue, Amritsar, through its Estate Officer. ......Respondent/Opposite party Appeal against order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur. Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:- For the appellant : None For the respondent : Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER :- Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 23.12.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurdaspur, relegating the respondent of this appeal to Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. Appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint and respondent of this appeal is F.A. No. 206 of 2017 2 Opposite party therein and they be referred, as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. Complainant instituted complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 'Act') against OP on the averments that plot No.191 measuring 209.11 sq. mts in PUDA Avenue, Old Jail Site, Gurdaspur under OUGL Scheme was allotted to him for residential purposes. He has made full and final payment of plot No.191 on 17.02.2012 and no due certificate was ever issued to him by OP. The above-said plot was allotted, vide allotment letter No.5091 dated 19.12.2011 to him. The OP allotted the plot stating that the area would be developed before completion of installments of the plot and OP received 25% price of the said plot at the time of allotment from him, but it failed to develop the area under the said Scheme within agreed period. No melted roads, water supply lights, sewerage, park etc. were provided by the OP in the allotted area. OP failed to provide the basic amenities therein, till the filing of the complaint. Even OP had taken full price of the plot from him. Possession of the said plot was not delivered to him by OP. Non-development of allotted area disentitles it to charge the development and betterment charges, for delayed construction thereon. It is also not entitled to any penalty for late construction of residence due to non- development of area under PUDA Scheme by it. OP is deficient in providing the basic services and amenities therein. He visted OP number of times with regard to extension of period without any F.A. No. 206 of 2017 3 charge or penalty and for providing the infrastructure amenities necessary for construction of residential house at the first instance and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for deposits made by him till the development of area under the PUDA scheme with it, but to no effect. Hence, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum praying for following reliefs:
i. to direct the OP not to charge penalty for construction till full development of area;
ii. to provide necessary amenities for construction of residential house;
iii. to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the payment, which was already paid to complainant;
iv. to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment.
3. Upon notice, OP filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint of the complainant regarding not charging the payment of construction is not maintainable. The facts of the complaint are against the terms and conditions of allotment letter and also contrary to statutory rule. On merits, it was admitted that plot No.191 was allotted to him by it, but this fact was denied that colony was not developed within the prescribed time and amenities like electrification of street were not provided, as alleged by him. As per the broacher/allotment, the possession of the plot has to be provided to him. OP is entitled for penalty for late construction of the premises of the above-said plot from him. He failed to get the approval of site plan and deliberately delayed the matter and failed to get the demarcation F.A. No. 206 of 2017 4 of the plot, committing default in seeking the formalities approved within prescribed time, therefore, he is liable to pay non- construction charges to it. Other averments raised in the complaint were denied by it praying for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. The complainants tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Hardeep Singh of OP as Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of Dharampal Assistant Estate Officer Amritsar as Ex.RX along with documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, District Forum Gurdaspur, dismissed the complaint by relegating the complainant to Civil Court for redressal of his grievances, as per order dated 23.12.2017. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Gurdaspur, complainant now appellant filed the above appeal before this Commission.
5. From hearing submissions of counsel of respondent of this appeal at length, as none appeared for appellant at the time of arguments of this appeal before us and from perusal of record, we find that there is dispute of facts on this point, as to whether amenities have been provided to the complainant by OP or not and as to whether OP is entitled to non construction of charges from him. F.A. No. 206 of 2017 5
6. We find that the facts involved in this case cannot be said so involute and complicated, which cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum even in summary jurisdiction. Apex Court examined the point in Dr. J.J. Merchang & Ors. Vs. Srinath Chaturvedi, 2002(2) CPC 640 and held that complaint involved disputed question of facts and required examination and cross- examination of expert witnesses. Complainant may not be directed to approach Civil Court for adjudication of the complaint. Consumer Protection Act and the Rules prescribe adequate procedure for speedy disposal of complaints. The Apex Court issued guidelines in cited authority to achieve this purpose. Consumer Forum is an alternative Forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of Civil Court. Complainant generally is not to be directed to approach the Civil Court on the ground that involved and complicated questions of facts required examination and cross-examination, even of expert witnesses, which would cause delay. Complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure laid down in CP Act. Apex Court further held in this cited case, that where the Commission deems it fit to cross-examine the witness in person, video conference or telephonic conference at the cost of person, who so applies could be arranged for and cross-examination could be through a Commission. This procedure would be helpful in cross- examination of experts, such as Doctors. Apex Court elaborately dealt with this matter in the cited authority and issued guidelines F.A. No. 206 of 2017 6 for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints. Consumer Foras are presided over by trained judicial officers and they are competent enough to decide such type of matters on account of their long standing experience in judicial matters. National Commission has also so held in M/s. Regency Acqua-Electro and Motelresorts Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Reported 2016(2) CLT 96, wherein Apex Court judgment in C.A. No.10874 of 1996, Ganesh Polytex Ltd. vs. Transport Corporation of India Ltd., was distinguished and reliance was rather placed on Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Srinath Chaturvedi authority (supra) and National Commission held in this authority that the Commission should not have held itself back from deciding complaints on merits. We are of this view that since the Consumer Forums are presided over by trained judicial officers with sufficient judicial background and experience and hence it cannot be said that matter is of this genre that it cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum.
7. Consequently, we accept the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of the District Forum Gurdaspur 23.12.2016 and hereby remand the case to District Forum Gurdaspur for adjudication of the matter in accordance with law and parties through their counsels shall appear before District Forum Gurdaspur on 09.10.2017. Record complete in all respects be sent back to District Forum forthwith so as to reach their well before the date fixed. F.A. No. 206 of 2017 7
8. Arguments in this case were heard on 21.08.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of order be communicated to the parties under rules.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases. (J.S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER August 23, 2017 (Surinder Pal Kaur) DB MEMBER
Comments