Mehar Kaur vs State of Punjab

-FEELING aggrieved against judgment and order dated 8.3.2004 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] passed in Complaint Case No. 628/99, the complainants have filed this appeal. At the time of motion hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in lumpsum besides costs of litigation of Rs. 1,100/-, which is grossly inadequate.

THE appellants had claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 1 lac for mental and physical torture besides the relief of issuance of a direction for mutation of the house/plot No. 721, Phase IV, Mohali in the name of late S. Harnek Singh and in pursuance of the conveyance deed dated 17.3.1987 executed by sub-general power of attorney Sh. Ajay Kumar in favour of late S. Harnek Singh and thereafter issuance of a direction to transfer the said house/plot in the name of the complainants who are the legal heirs of late S. Harnek Singh, in pursuance of the legal heir certificate and affidavit submitted/executed by sub-general power of attorney to O.P. No. 4 namely the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Mohali. THE O.Ps. arrayed in the complaint were the State of Punjab through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Chandigarh; THE Director, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SCO No. 63-64, Sector 17, Chandigarh; THE Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SCO No. 63-64, Sector 17, Chandigarh and the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Mohali. The District Forum after referring to the evidence led by the parties referred to letter dated 31.8.1987 issued by the Estate Officer, which reads, inter alia, as under: "In the meeting held on 22.7.1987 under the Chairmanship of Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, it has been decided that the plot allotted after payment must be transferred in the name of the allottee and not in the name of third party because it is only after getting the ownership in his name that allottee could sell it or pass on the right to another person."

The District Forum held that vide letter dated 1.12.1998, it was intimated to the complainants that conveyance deed be executed first in the name of the allottee and thereafter No objection certificate for transfer could be issued.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the policy decision dated 29.7.1987 did not apply to this case inasmuch as on 17.3.1987, late S. Harnek Singh purchased the stamp papers worth Rs. 11,250/- and the conveyance deed for transfer of the plot in question was executed by Shri Ajay Kumar, authorised attorney and the said conveyance deed was submitted in March, 1987 about four months prior to the alleged policy, which did not have retrospective effect. THE record of the case was summoned from the O.Ps, which was, however, not perused. THE District Forum pointed out that undisputedly the deceased S. Harnek Singh submitted papers in March 1987. It was, however, pleaded that the signatures of the original ownership Shri Parveen Kumar were not tallying. Late S. Harnek Singh died on 54.1988. THE complainants filed the complaint in the year 1999. According to the finding recorded by the District Forum, had S. Harnek Singh being alive then the position would have been different and now as the policy of PUDA has been changed and a ban has been imposed on transfer of plot in the name of purchaser from the original allottee and as such the District Forum could not grant such relief to the legal heirs of late S. Harnek Singh.

AFTER carefully considering the finding recorded and hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly held that the relief regarding the issuance of direction to the O.Ps. to transfer the plot firstly in the name of deceased S. Harnek Singh and thereafter in the name of the appellants could not be granted to the complainants. Apart from it, it may be pointed out that late S. Harnek Singh died on 5.4.1988 but this complaint was filed in the year 1999 and even on the date when the complaint was filed, the appellants did not obtain a succession certificate regarding the rights in respect of the plot/house aforesaid in place of the deceased S. Harnek Singh. Besides this, the District Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could not go into the dispute regarding the rights of S. Harnek Singh particularly in the absence of the original allottee namely Shri Praveen Kumar. The O.Ps. who are the respondents before us had clearly communicated to S. Harnek Singh that till the plot was duly owned by Shri Parveen Kumar, the No Objection Certificate regarding the transfer of the plot could not be issued by the O.Ps. particularly (Estate Officer). It is relevant to note that in the meantime, a ban was imposed for transfer of plot in the name of the purchaser. This case thus involved the decision relating to the rights about the house/plot between Shri Parveen Kumar on one hand and late S. Harnek Singh on the other hand. Late S. Harnek Singh was admittedly the purchaser-in-title or interest of the appellants. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order insofar as it relates to the refusal to grant the relief of mutation both in the name of late S. Harnek Singh in the first place and thereafter in the name of the appellants. So far as the compensation is concerned, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, which could not be shown as grossly inadequate. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.