RATTANJIT SINGH Vs. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lt. Col. Rattanjit Singh son of late Major Kishan Singh has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar on account of the following : (i) To pay Rs.4,96,401.53 p. to the complainant on account of difference in construction cost of plot. (ii) To pay Rs.3,60,000/- on account of rent paid by the complainant for the portion of the house taken on rent for his residence during the last 10 years, i. e. year, 1988 to 1998 as he could not construct his house due to gross deficiency on the part of opposite party. (iii) To pay Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment, agony, hypertension and other ailment suffered by the complainant and his wife due to gross deficiency on the part of the opposite party. (iv) To pay cost of the complaint. (v) Any other relief which this Commission deems fit and just.

(2.) According to the complainant, he applied to the opposite party for the allotment of a residential plot and vide Allotment Letter No. AIT/ss/1552 dated 1.3.1988 a plot-No.43 in Defence Colony, Ajnala Road, Expansion Scheme, Amritsar was allotted to the complainant by the opposite party for which agreement was executed between the parties on 11.6.1988. The total price of the plot Was 81,000/- and the complainant deposited 25% of the total value of the plot at the time of agreement and thereafter also deposited the balance consideration on different dates with the opposite party. After deposit of entire consideration the complainant requested many times for delivery of possession of plot and for execution of sale deed but the opposite party alleged every time that there was some litigation and the stay was operating against some portion of the plot, and thereafter on 20.1.1998 the opposite party executed sale deed of the above plot in favour of the complainant and delivered possession. It is alleged that the opposite party delivered the possession of the plot after the lapse of 10 years on the pretext that some part of the plot was under litigation and the stay order was operating that part of the plot. Due to gross deficiency in rendering service for belated delivery of possession of this plot and execution of sale deed, the complainant filed a complaint seeking aforesaid relief.

(3.) The Amritsar Improvement Trust-opposite party, in reply has stated that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has got no locus standi to approach this Commission. On merits, the opposite party mainly admitted the facts narrated in the complaint. However, it is stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that the said plot will be transferred in the name of the complainant as soon as the answering respondent, i. e. Amritsar Improvement Trust gets the possession of the same part of the said plot, which is under litigation in Karam Singh and Ors. V/s. A. I. T. , pending in the Civil Court. Thereafter, the complainant gave his consent to all terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter and full payment of the plot by way of interest-free instalments as and when they became due to the opposite parties. It is stated that some part of the land of Diwan Singh, which was not acquired is situated a little away from the scheme, but however a passage (Rasta) going to that land passes to this plot regarding which the said Diwan Singh filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court in which on 14.5.1980 the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Shri M. L. Malhotra directed to maintain the status-quo till 24.5.1980 and status quo order continued in one form or the other and after a spurt of litigation, ultimately the matter is pending in form of a Regular Second Appeal No.2643 of 1993 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein status quo order still continues. In view of the stay order passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction, the opposite party-Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar is unable to hand over the clear possession to the complainant. It is admitted that due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the officials of the opposite party upon wrong information furnished qua khasra numbers by the complainant himself vide his letter dated 7.11.1997, the Improvement Trust got sale deed effected on 20.1.1998 in favour of the complainant. It so happened that the complainant in application stated that khasra number of plot No. D-43 was 96/7/2 and 8/1 min. , believing the complainant, the status of Khasra No.96 and min.7/2 and 8/1 was got checked from record and as there was no stay qua these khasra numbers, the sale deed was effected. Later-on, it was found that the complainant had furnished wrong information and factually the plot No. D-43 comprises of Khasra No.96/7/1, 7/2, 426 Min and 14 Min. Out of these Khasra Nos.96/7/1 is subject-matter of the civil suit filed by Sh. Diwan Singh and others in which status quo order passed by the Court way back in the year 1980 is still continuing as directed by the Hon'ble High Court.