LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 ).

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.