NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(From Order dated 04.08.2004 of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Baljit Singh Petitioner
versus
Dr.
P. D. SHENOY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.
ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner In Person
For the Respondent Ms
C. K. Sucharita, Advocate
This
revision petition impugns the judgment and order dated 04.08.2004 of the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
2. Briefly,
the facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement published by the
PUDA in October 1989 regarding demand survey for social housing from Low Income
Group (LIG), Middle Income Group (MIG) and High Income Group (HIG) applicants
for free-hold, built up houses on hire-purchase basis in several cities and
towns of Punjab, the complainant applied for an HIG house in S. A. S. Nagar and
deposited the requisite registration fee of Rs. 3,000/- on 20.11.1989. However,
in September 1996, the complainant received a cheque for Rs. 3,000/- from the
PUDA, purportedly as refund of the said registration fee. He returned the said
cheque to the issuing bank and wrote back to the PUDA that he had returned the
cheque as he wanted to keep alive his registration for allotment of an HIG
house. In October 1998, the PUDA informed the complainant that all applicants
were being refunded the registration fee deposit and his registration for HIG
house could not be continued. In February 1997, i.e., well before he received
the above-mentioned communication from the PUDA, the complainant filed a
complaint before the District Forum alleging unfair trade practice by the PUDA
in denying him allotment of an HIG house. After considering the averments and
documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and the PUDA, the District
Forum held that the advertisement issued by the PUDA in October 1989 was only
for a demand survey for the above-mentioned three category of houses, in
several cities and towns of Punjab and did not, therefore, entitle the
complainant to allotment of an HIG house in sector 70, Mohali, as claimed by
the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, disposed of the complaint by
ordering refund of Rs. 3,000/- by the PUDA to the complainant and interest
thereon @ 10% for three years, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court’s
judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7798 of 2003 (arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 3333/2000) along with costs of Rs. 550/-. As noted above,
by its impugned order the UT Commission disposed of the appeal filed by the
complainant, slightly modifying the order of the District Forum.
3. We
have heard the parties and considered the documents filed before the lower Fora
as well as those filed before us by the PUDA in response to the complainant’s
application for production of certain documents by the former.
4. The
complainant’s main contentions are the same as before the Fora below, viz., (i)
the advertisement issued by the PUDA in October 1989 was for allotment of,
inter alia, HIG houses in sector 70, Mohali for which he had duly paid the
initial registration fee; (ii) in that advertisement, there was no mention of
the need to deposit of Rs. 4,000/- for allotment of HIG houses; (iii) the
contention of the PUDA before the Consumer Fora that the allotment of HIG
houses in Mohali was in response to another, earlier advertisement requiring
deposit of Rs. 4,000/- is untenable; and (iv) he is, therefore, entitled to
allotment of an HIG house in Mohali. No documentary evidence in support of the
substantive contentions regarding the entitlement to allotment of an HIG house,
the main prayer all along, have, however, been filed by the complainant, either
before the lower Fora or before us.
5. The
PUDA, on the other hand, has filed documents in support of its contentions (as
well as those requested by the complainant in the proceedings before us) that
(i) the advertisement issued in October 1989 was only for demand survey for
HIG, MIG and LIG houses in several cities and towns of Punjab; (ii) after
assessment of the demand emerging from this survey, the proposal of
constructing and allotting such houses in several cities was dropped; (iii) the
allotment of single-storeyed HIG houses in Phase IX, S. A. S. Nagar was in
response to an advertisement issued in February 1989 which required deposit of
Rs. 4,000/- and the allotments were done September 1996, which was not relevant
to the case of the complainant; (v) the two cases of allotment referred to by
the complainant in support of his contention were, in fact, those in response
to the earlier advertisement of February 1989 / allotments of September 1996
and done correctly; and (vi) the lower Fora have correctly held accordingly and
awarded relief to the complainant in accordance with the ratio of the Apex
Court’s relevant judgment.
6. After
going through the averments and the documents before us, we are satisfied that
the contentions of the PUDA are indeed valid, as held by both the lower Fora
and that there is no reason for us to interfere with the orders of the UT
Commission in the complainant’s appeal no. 158 of 2004. This revision petition
is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to
costs.
………………………………..
( P. D. Shenoy)
PRESIDING MEMEBR
……………………………….
(Anupam Dasgupta)
MEMBER