KARAMJEET SINGH SETHI vs Urban Improvement Trust

KARAMJEET Singh (complainant) has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") against (1) Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer through Chairmanand (2) Chief Legal Assistant and Officer In-charge, Planning Branch, U.I.T. Ajmer (opposite parties) on 21.10.91 praying for the following reliefs: (1) that the complainant may be delivered possession of Plot No. A-17 (seventeen), Punchsheel Nagar, Ajmer immediately. (2) that on account of delay in constructing the house, enhanced cost Rs. 1,50,000/- may be awarded. (3) That interest on (i) Rs. 25,000/- from 9.7.90, (ii) Rs. 42,528/- from 13.12.90 to 6.5.91 @ 12% p.a. and (iii) Rs. 42,528/- from 6.5.91 until the date of the delivery of possession @ 24% p.a. may be awarded. (4) That a sum of Rs. 5,000/- should be awarded as expenses forgoing from Jaipur to Ajmer.

THE complainant has alleged that after the draw of lottery, Plot No.A-17 was allotted to him, the area of which was 213.33 sq.yards @ Rs. 211 per sq. yard. He deposited the amount. Letter No. 38 dated 8.4.91 was sent to the complainant informing him to take possession of the Plot on 4.4.91 or within 7 days from the date of the letter, from Shri Annup Tandon, Jr. Engineer at the site. THE complainant reached there for taking possession on 6.5.91 and he found that there was neither roads nor sewerage line nor electric connection nor pipe line and could not locate the allotted plot. He wrote a letter that very day which was received by the Urban Improvement Trust on 6.5.91. He was told that neither land has been acquired nor any steps for developing it have been taken and the matter is under process. To know about this the complainant became mentally perturbed. THE complainant was not given possession on 6.5.91. THEre was delay in constructing the house for the, prices had increased and instead of cost Rs. 1,50,000/-, he will be required to spend Rs. 3,00,000/- and, therefore, he is entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of increase in cost. He claimed interest on Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 42,528/-. He further alleged that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was spent by him for going to Ajmer from Jaipur. He therefore, filed the complaint for the reliefs mentioned above. Opposite Party No.1 submitted the version of the case dated 2.5.92 contesting the complaint. It was admitted that the complainant has submitted an application for allotment of plot in Panchsheel Nagar Scheme and deposited the amount. The responsibility of development of roads providing of electricity and water was taken by the opposite-parties, but it was not the condition precedent that the plot will be allotted after that. It was admitted that a letter was submitted by the complainant on 6.5.91, the contents thereof were denied. After the deposit of the amount by the applicants allotment letters were issued. During the process of delivery of possession, the location of some of the plots being on a mountain, amendment in the Scheme became necessary and the approval was obtained from the Planning Department. On account of this there was delay in giving possession to the complainant. According to the amended plan, lottery were drawn afresh on Computer and the plots were allotted. The construction of roads is in process, water is being available through hand-pumps the Rajastha n State Electricity Board, had started work at the request of the opposite parties for laying down electricity line and that work is also in progress. It was submitted that the amended possession letter was issued according to the amended plan to the complainant on 22.2.92 and the complainant can raise construction after obtaining permission. There was delay in delivering the possession on account of unforeseen reasons. Claim for compensation was denied. Two objections were also raised : A. that the reliefs sought by the complainant cannot be granted under the Act. B. that possession had already been delivered to the complainant.

Both the parties submitted documents in support of their pleadings. The complainant filed a rejoinder to the version of the case on 16.5.92. Objections on behalf of opposite parties were submitted in taking the rejoinder on record. By order dated 18.5.92. Only that part of the rejoinder was taken on record which was in reply to the new facts pleaded in the version of the case. The complainant submitted his affidavit in support of the complaint. Shri C.R. Choudhary, Secretary U.I.T., submitted his affidavit in support of the version of the case. Affidavit of Shri Annup Tandon, Jr. Engineer was also filed in support of the pleas taken by the opposite parties in the version of the case.

IT appears from the record that an application was submitted by the Chief Legal Assistant, U.I.T. Ajmer on 14.10.92 stating that the complaint is with respect to immovable property and so it is not covered by the provisions of the Act and as such the complaint may be dismissed. Along with that, photostat copy of the order dated 9.7.92 passed by the National Commission, New Delhi, in First Appeal No. 275/91 was submitted, the complainant therefore submitted his affidavit, stating that the possession has not been delivered to him though 3-4 months have passed. One Darshan Singh, father of the complainant also gave his affidavit dated 21.10.92. As the opposite parties had no objections the affidavits filed were taken on record. Learned Counsel for the opposite-parties did not appear on 16.11.92 We heard Mr. D.S. Sethi, father of the complainant and Mr. Hamid U.D.C. on behalf of the opposite parties and considered the record. We have already mentioned the reliefs which the complainant has sought against the opposite parties. The reliefs which the complainant has sought are with respect to immovable property that is, plot No. A-17, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer. A some-what similar question arose before the National Commission in Shri Krishan Oil and Metal Industries v. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (First Appeal No. 275/1991 decided on 9.7.92). The National Commission observed as follows :- "We have, however, gone into the case on merits. This is a case of allotment of immovable property and not of goods, and therefore, the complaint is not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

It is clear that in regard to the allotment of immovable property, a complaint does not lie under the Act. Apart from that the reliefs which the complainant has sought in the complaint are the reliefs which cannot be granted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is firmly established that a Redressal Forum established under the Act can grant only those reliefs which are mentioned in Section 14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. Here the complainant has sought the relief of possession of immovable property under the Act which cannot be granted under the Act. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. It will be open to the complainant to agitate the matter contained in the complaint before the Civil Court if so, advised. The complaint is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.