w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Municipality, Gajsinghpur Municipality, Gajsinghpur, Through Officer, Sriganganagar Rajasthan v/s Kamaljeet & Others

    Revision Petition No. 3455 of 2016

    Decided On, 06 December 2017

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: H.D. Thanvi, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------



Judgment Text

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.05.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 321/2016, “Kamaljeet & Ors. versus Municipality, Gajsinghpur”, vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the District Forum Sriganganagar in consumer complaint No. 59/M/201

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

, was set aside. The District Forum vide said order had concluded that the charge under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for non-implementation of the orders of the Consumer Fora against the opposite party was not made out. The State Commission, however, allowed the appeal and held that the complainants were free to initiate proceedings against the OPs under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2. The facts of the case are that the complainant, Tulsidass had made application on 07.05.1985 to the opposite party (OP), Municipality, Gajsinghpur for allotment of a plot under weaker income group, whereupon Plot No. 6DE was allotted to him. The lease amount of Rs.686/- was also deposited by the complainant on 13.05.1985 through receipt No. 39/65. However, the actual demarcation and possession of the said plot on the spot was not given by the OP for a long time. In the consumer complaint bearing No. 74/2013 dated 01.02.2013 filed by the complainant, a direction was sought upon the OP to carry out the earmarking and demarcation of the plot and issue NOC for construction on the same and also to provide compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony etc. alongwith Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. It was stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant had continuously remained in contact with the opposite party (OP), but he was not given the said plot.3. In reply to the consumer complaint submitted before the District Forum, the OP stated that the complainant/allottee had not carried out the construction work on the plot within 2 years as per the condition of allotment. The complaint had been filed by him after about 28 years of allotment made on 13.05.1985 and hence, it was barred by limitation. It was admitted, however, by the OP that Plot No. 6DE had been allotted to the complainant in the year 1985. The OP also stated that on applications filed by the complainant, directions were issued to them by the District Collector for allotment of an alternative plot. They had accordingly written to the State Government for their approval for allotment of a similar plot. However, the decision was pending with the State Government.4. The District Forum vide their order dated 03.10.2013, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Municipality to hand-over the same plot or an alternative plot to the complainant and also to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amount deposited by him and give a compensation of Rs.20,000/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to him. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the Municipality Gajsinghpur challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by them vide order dated 22.01.2014. It transpired, however, that the decision made by the consumer fora was not implemented on some ground or the other. In the meantime, the complainant Tulsidass died and the present respondents, i.e., Kamaljeet and others were substituted in his place as his legal representatives. Vide order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the District Forum, the District Forum observed that the complaint was not maintainable, because Tulsidass had already died. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, Kamaljeet & Ors. challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 04.05.2016, the State Commission observed that Kamaljeet and others had right to pursue the proceedings as legal representatives. The power of attorney executed by his father Tulsidass had become ineffective due to the death of Tulsidass, but Kamaljeet & Ors. could pursue the matter as legal representatives. The State Commission directed the District Forum to initiate proceedings under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Being aggrieved against the said order, the Municipality Gajsinghpur is before us by way of the present revision petition.5. When the matter was taken-up for hearing on 25.07.2017, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, Gajsinghpur sought adjournment to get instructions in the matter. On the next date of hearing, the learned counsel for the Municipality, Gajsinghpur stated that the plot in question had already been allotted to the petitioners and hence, no cause of action survived in the matter.6. In view of the position explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld. It is made clear that in case, the respondents are still aggrieved against the opposite party Municipality, Gajsinghpur, they are free to initiate proceedings under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioners for the enforcement of the earlier orders passed by the consumer fora below. There shall be no order as to costs.
OR
Also