Balbir Singh vs LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

IT''s an appeal against the order dated 7.7.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was allotted a plot No. 474-D, measuring 100 sq. yards, out of 150 Acre Scheme in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, against his application dated 2.5.1977. Complainant had deposited Rs. 400/- as earnest money. Price of the plot was fixed at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was told that he would be called when the possession was to be delivered but the possession was never delivered to him. It was then alleged in the complaint that he had made many efforts but the possession was not delivered and the plot allotted to him was never cancelled. He was never at fault. According to the complainant, he was entitled to a direction for the delivery of the possession of the plot and to recover compensation from the respondent-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) along with interest. After notice, opposite party in its reply had taken the preliminary objections that the complaint was time-barred; complainant had got no cause of action and there was no deficiency in service. According to the opposite party, the complainant was allotted a plot on 2.5.1997 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter itself. He had paid Rs. 400/- at the time of application and he was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,000/- within a period of 15 days but the complainant had neither deposited any money with the opposite party nor abided by the rules and regulations of Improvement Trust. He had miserably failed to perform his part/obligation owing towards opposite party and after a belated stage had come up with the false and frivolous complaint. It was then stated in the reply that in addition to above, a notice dated 4.5.1979 was issued to the complainant calling upon him to deposit the amount of instalments with interest, penalty and penal interest within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, failing which the allotment would be cancelled and the earnest money would be forfeited. Despite this notice, the complainant had failed to deposit the due instalments and on this account his earnest money was forfeited and now he was debarred to seek any allotment of the plot. Ultimately, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

Allotment letter Ex. C6 issued to the complainant (Ex. R-1 produced by the opposite party) shows that the allotment was made to the complainant on 9.5.1977. The allotment was of Plot No. 474 measuring 100 sq. yards and the total price of the plot was Rs. 1,000/-. Complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 1,000/- after adjusting the amount of Rs. 400/- within 15 days and the rest of the amount was to be paid in 76 monthly instalments. The complainant was asked to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. He was also required to execute an agreement with the opposite party. Opposite party has also produced a letter dated 4.5.1979 by which the complainant was informed that he had failed to deposit the instalments as per allotment letter issued to him. In that letter he was also asked to deposit the instalments due along with penal interest at the rate of 20% within 15 days; but the complainant did not deposit the amount even after that letter. It clearly shows that the complainant had never deposited any amount after the allotment. The complainant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment which was rather a default on his part. The complainant did not mention anything regarding the deposit of the amount due to the opposite party. He simply claimed the possession. Obviously, possession could not be delivered unless the complainant had made the payment according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. Complainant has himself placed on the file Ex. C4, which indicates that the plot which was allotted to him was subsequently allotted to one Dalip Kaur. Letter Ex. C3 produced by the complainant shows that the complainant himself had produced a document which shows that the plot allotted to him was cancelled and the allotment of that plot was made to some other person. Complainant has placed a document Ex. C5. As per that document the plot allotted to him was never cancelled. It has rightly held by the District Forum that document Ex. C5 as filed by the complainant was not complete. Complete document was not produced in Ex. C5. Documents Ex. C3 and Ex. C4, clearly shows that the allotment made to the complainant had already been cancelled. Ex. C9 on the record reveals that the allotment had already been made to a third person. The complainant having himself committed the fault was not entitled to any relief. District Forum has rightly held that even the complaint was time-barred. As referred to above, a letter dated 4.5.1979 was written to the complainant in which it was clearly stated that he had failed to deposit the instalments due as per allotment letter and he was asked to deposit instalments due by a fixed time mentioned in the letter along with penal interest at 20% within 15 days. Even then the complainant did not deposit the amount as asked for in the letter as far back as in the year 1979. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.