JAGDEV SINGH vs LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

COMPLAINANT Jagdev Singh has filed this revision petition against OP/Ludhiana Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the LIT), challenging the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.679 of 2008. The District Forum had dismissed his complaint against the LIT and his appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission in the impugned order.

FACTS , in very brief, are that the Complainant, while working as a Major in the Indian Army, had applied for allotment of a plot in 1985. As seen from the record, he was allotted a plot on 28.4.1998. But, the allotment was cancelled allegedly for non-compliance with the conditions of the allotment. In the meanwhile, he had retired from the Army as Lt. Colonel and had moved to Canada in 1997. In response to his subsequent representation to the LIT and Government of Punjab, his allotment was restored on 15.9.2006. He paid the sale consideration including interest and penal interest and was put in possession. After restoration of his allotment on 15.9.2006 he filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana on 17.11.2006 with a prayer that, "the respondents be directed to issue the allotment letter to the complainant without charging any interest or Penal interest for the plot No.804-F Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme Ludhiana and to execute the sale deed of the said plot in favour of the complainant. "

THE District Forum, as already noted, dismissed his complaint. It held that - "The complainant has admitted that he could not deposit the sale consideration as per the terms of the said letter and on his request Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 addressed to OP-LIT, and on its recommendation, Principal Secy. Punjab Govt. vide its memo dated 21.09.2006 gave approval to the OP-LIT to get deposited the balance instalments along with interest and penal interest which is within the provisions of the said allotment letter and the complainant deposited the entire amount in compliance to the letter of OP-LIT dated 21.11.2006 as admitted in written arguments. There is no evidence that the complainant has deposited the said amount under protest. Since the complainant has deposited the entire pending dues including interest and penal interest in compliance to the Ex.P4 and letter dated 21.11.2006 of the OP-LIT, so this complaint becomes infructuous. "

HIS appeal was dismissed by the State Commission, which observed that - "16. As per the above discussion, it is proved that the appellant was himself at fault by not intimating the respondent regarding his address after his retirement. As such, the allotment letter was sent to him at the address which was mentioned in the application and the appellant had himself not collected the allotment letter from the office of the respondent and not taken the possession of the plot and was negligent. The Principal Secretary had taken very lenient view to his request and restored the allotment of his plot on the old rates when the rates were very high when the plot was restored. 17. No appeal against the order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab was filed by the appellant before the appropriate authority and accepted the same without any protest. 18. During the pendency of the complaint, the appellant had already deposited the amount as per the order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab and had obtained the possession of the plot. There is also no version of the appellant that the amount is paid by the appellant under protest. "

I have heard Mr. Sidharth Mittal, Advocate at length on behalf of the revision petitioner and have also considered the records submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the plot was allotted to the Complainant on 28.4.1998, but the letter of appointment was sent to him c/o 99 APO, while he had already retired from the Army in 1997. Learned counsel emphatically argued that his application of 1985 had given not only his official postal address as 554 ASC Bn. C/o 56 APO, but also his residential address in Jalandhar. Therefore, notice should have been sent to his residential address. The counsel was specifically asked to inform whether the Complainant was even posted in 99 APO. However, he chose not to give any specific answer and merely claimed that he had no instruction from the client in this behalf. Learned counsel only stressed that the letter of allotment could not have been served as the letter was redirected to respondent /LIT.

THE factual position is very obvious and clear, despite inability of the counsel to answer questions. Admittedly, the Complainant retired from Army service in 1997. Therefore, there was no way that the letter of allotment of 28.4.1998, being subsequent to his retirement, could have been served through 99 APO. This explains the observation of the State Commission in para 16 of the impugned order that the Complainant himself was at fault for not intimating his post retirement address to the respondent/LIT.

IN his pleadings before the District Forum as well as in the revision petition, it is claimed that he was periodically in touch with the LIT to ascertain the fate of his application. However, the evidence produced in support of this claim is limited to the two letters address in 2005, the first on 18.5.2005 and the second on 20.6.2005. These two letters are not denied and in fact admitted by the LIT in his written statement before the District Forum. They also provide the necessary backdrop to restoration of his allotment, little later on 15.9.2006. However, more significantly, it is equally clear that the Complainant has failed to make out any case in support of his claim in so far as the period from his retirement in 1997 to the correspondence in 2005, is concerned. The District Forum as well as State Commission have both held that the complainant has not only paid the sale consideration fixed in the allotment order of 15.9.2006, but has also paid it without any protest. There is nothing on record to point to the contrary. In this background, his claim for relief does not merit consideration and has rightly been rejected by the fora below.

FOR the reasons detailed above, the revision petition is held to be totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.