ASHOK AGGARWAL vs IMPROVEMENT TRUST, & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.12.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 119/2015, "Ashok Aggarwal vs. Improvement Trust, Sangrur & Anr.", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 03.12.2014, passed by the District Forum Sangrur, dismissing the consumer complaint No. 296/2014, was upheld.

The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party (OP) Improvement Trust, Sangrur, allotted plot No. 213 in Captain Karam Singh Nagar, Sangrur to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, mother of the complainant Ashok Aggarwal, vide allotment letter No. 3273 dated 06.07.2001. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that Smt. Kaushalya Devi died on 05.10.2003, following which, the complainant applied for the transfer of the plot in his name to the OP on 04.11.2003 and submitted relevant documents like the death certificate etc. alongwith the application. The OP vide their letter dated 21.10.2004 demanded certain documents for the transfer of the plot and according to the complainant, the same were delivered to them. Despite sending the documents, the plot in question, was not transferred in favour of the complainant, rather the OPs raised a demand for deposit of the non-construction fee vide their letter dated 15.06.2005. The plot was ultimately transferred in the name of the complainant on 04.10.2010. Vide letter dated 13.02.2014 from the OP, the non-construction fee for the period 01.08.2004 to 30.06.2014 was demanded. The complainant deposited a sum of 4,75,000/- on 09.05.2014 with the opposite party under protest and then filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of 4,75,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. alongwith damages and compensation of various amounts.

The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that the opposite party had demanded various documents like the legal heirs certificate, succession certificate, registered will, court order or any family settlement etc. from the complainant so as to decide about the transfer of the plot, but the complainant failed to submit any document and hence, the plot could not be transferred in his name. The OP Trust further stated that the complaint in question was highly time-barred. Further, the complainant was no more consumer of the OP, as he had already sold the plot to a third party Chiman Lal s/o Ramesh Chander of Sangrur.

The District Forum vide their order dated 03.12.2014, dismissed the complaint on various grounds, saying that the complaint was hopelessly barred by time in view of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The plot in question had been transferred in the name of the complainant on 04.10.2010, meaning thereby that the complaint could be filed only within two years from that date. The District Forum further observed that even after the transfer of plot in his name, the complainant failed to raise construction on the same and hence, the OP was within their rights to raise demand for non-construction fee. Moreover, the complainant had failed to provide documents to the OP Trust for the transfer of the plot, although they had sent letters to him in this regard. The complainant had also concealed the material fact of selling the plot to Chiman Lal and hence, the complainant did not deserve any relief. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed vide impugned order. The State Commission also observed that after the sale of the plot to Chiman Lal, the complainant ceased to be a consumer of the OP and hence, was not entitled to any relief. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainants are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During hearing before this Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that because of the non-transfer of the plot in his name for a long time, he could not raise construction on the same and hence, the complainant was not liable to pay the non-construction fee. Even if he had sold the plot, he was entitled to recover the non-construction fee paid to the OP Trust.

The learned counsel for the OP/respondent Trust stated that in view of the concurrent findings of the consumer fora below, the revision petition was not maintainable, because the said orders could be challenged only, if there was any patent error of jurisdiction or material defect in the same, as per the view held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in their various judgments from time to time. The learned counsel further stated that the Trust had repeatedly asked the complainant to submit the necessary documents for the transfer of the plot, but he failed to deliver the same. The factum of selling the property to Chiman Lal had been concealed by the complainant from the Trust. The orders passed by the consumer fora below were, therefore, valid in the eyes of law and should be upheld.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The first point that merits consideration is whether the consumer complaint is time-barred in view of section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is clearly laid down in section 24A of the Act that the consumer fora shall not admit a complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. The District Forum observed that the plot had been transferred in the name of the complainant on 04.10.2010 and hence, he could have filed the consumer complaint within two years of the date of transfer, in case the complainant was aggrieved by the action of the Trust for non-transfer of the plot. The complainant has tried to explain that he could not file the same in time, as he was suffering from serious health problem. However, this contention of the complainant has not been substantiated by any evidence on record and hence, the consumer complaint is barred by limitation, in so far as the demand of damages on account of delay of transfer of plot in the name of the complainant is concerned.

The next issue that requires consideration is whether the complainant had submitted the necessary documents for the transfer of the plot to the Trust. The OP Trust has taken the stand that despite writing letters to the complainant, he failed to submit the necessary documents like legal heirs certificate, succession certificate, registered will, court order or family settlement etc. and hence, the said plot could not be transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant has failed to provide any cogent evidence or specific dates in favour of his contention that he had submitted the necessary documents to the Trust. The findings given by the consumer fora below cannot, therefore, be faulted by any stretch of imagination in the absence of such evidence.

It has also come on record that the plot in question was sold by the complainant to Chiman Lal, much before the filing of the complaint. The consumer fora below have rightly observed that the complainant had concealed this material fact from them in proceedings in the consumer complaint. The conclusion arrived at by the District Forum and the State Commission that the complainant did not have the status of consumer at the time of filing the complaint is correct and there is no valid ground to interfere with the finding given by them on this count. It was the duty of the complainant to make a truthful disclosure before the consumer fora below, while submitting the complaint before them.

The complainant has taken the plea that the demand of non-construction fee made by the OP Trust from time to time was not in accordance with law as the Trust failed to transfer the plot in his name. This contention of the complainant is also not tenable, because he has failed to explain the reasons as to why the construction on the said plot could not be raised within time. Even after the transfer of the plot in his name in the year 2010, the complainant failed to raise construction or to take any steps in that direction.

Based on the discussion above, we find that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the consumer fora below. The Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down the law in " Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], " that the powers in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction could be used only if there is a patent error of jurisdiction or material defect in the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld.