LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs Jasbir Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 10.5.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that according to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) a plot measuring 150 sq. yards bearing No. 218-D in Model Town Extension Scheme Part-II was allotted by the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the O.P.) to him through Atam Nagar Co-operative House Building Society. All the payments as claimed by the opposite party was made by him. Later on, he was intimated vide letter dated 8.11.1990 that he had been allotted plot No. 774-D measuring 150 sq. yards in Model Town Extension Scheme Part-II in lieu of the above said plot on the same terms and conditions. The possession of the plot No. 774-D was also not given to him. On the other hand, opposite party vide letter dated 30.5.1995 referred his case to the Punjab Government mentioning therein that the plot had already been allotted to some other person and as such, the premission be allowed to allot him plot in some other scheme as has been done in the case of Smt. Lata Bhatti. The complainant gave his consent to the allotment of plot in the other scheme as has been done in the case of Smt. Latta Bhatti. He has not been allotted any plot so far in lieu of the plot nor the possession of the said plot was given to him. Thus, he sought the direction from the District Forum to the opposite party to allot the plot and deliver the possession of the plot of maximum possible size on the same analogy on which Mrs. Latta Bhatti allotted the plot. He also claimed compensation. The opposite party in the reply had taken preliminary objections that the complaint was time barred and the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. It has been admitted by the opposite party that the complainant was intimated by the opposite party that he had been allotted plot No. 774-D measuring 150 sq. yards in lieu of plot No. 218-D and that plot No. 774-D was not given to the complainant and that the matter was referred to the Government. Deficiency on their part was denied by the opposite party.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and the opposite party was directed to allot to the complainant a plot measuring 150 sq. yards or of near about size in the same scheme and if not available then in some other scheme on the same terms and conditions on which the original plot was allotted. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Hence, this appeal.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help. Admittedly, the complainant was originally allotted plot No. 218-D and later on in lieu of that plot he was allotted plot No. 774-D and the possession of plot No. 774-D was not given to the complainant. It has not been denied by the opposite party that the case of the complainant was referred to the Punjab Government vide a resolution of the O.P., which shows that plot No. 774-D, which was allotted to the complainant had been allotted to some other person. A letter of the Punjab Government has been placed on record, according to which, the reply was sent that the allotment may be made by the Improvement Trust as per the policy laid down. Entitlement of the allotment of plot to the complainant has also not been disputed. It was again an admitted fact that the complainant was actually allotted plot No. 774-D. The only thing, which remains to be done by the opposite party was the possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant. Under these circumstances, according to our considered view, the District Forum was right in holding that in lieu of the plot allotted to the complainant some other plot be allotted to him in the same scheme and if it is not available in the same scheme, then it may be allotted in some other scheme on the same terms and conditions on which the earlier plot was allotted. It is also not disputed that the complainant had deposited the amount due long long back and he was not put in possession of the plot despite that. In these circumstances, the District Forum has rightly held that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not delivering the plot to the complainant and we endorse this decision of the District Forum as legal and just. An amount of Rs. 7,000/- awarded as compensation to the complainant by the District Forum is also just and proper in the circumstances of the case. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, which is hereby upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.