PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 15.12.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I] in Complaint Case No.828 of 1995.

(2.) The respondent/complainant applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 125 sq. yards in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana in April, 1990 and deposited earnest money of Rs.2,000/-, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority [for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA], Ludhiana, published in different newspapers in March, 1990. The application of the complainant was registered at Serial No.3518 in the office of the Estate Officer. The Bank Draft of Rs.2,000/- submitted by the complainant was also encashed by the Estate Officer. The applications were invited by the Estate Officer under the allotment policy of 1983 which was based on income criteria for different sizes of plots. In April, 1991, the Punjab Government transferred all the assets of Urban Estate to Punjab Housing Development Board which decided that for future allotments, income criteria as contained in 1983 policy should be discarded. The Board considered it necessary to do so as the Board was going to charge an economic and realistic price for plots of all sizes. It has been averred in the complaint that two draw of lots took place by the Punjab Housing Development Board through the Estate Officer on 18.12.1992 and 16.6.1994 but in both the draw of lots, the name of the complainant was not included on the ground that his income was in excess of the income criteria laid down in the policy of 1983. The complainant made a detailed representation dated 6.2.1995 to the opposite parties (copy Annexure P-2) for considering his case in the light of the decision of the Punjab Housing Development Board. The opposite parties sent a reply to the complainant, a copy of which was placed on record as Annexure P-3, informing him that the said income criteria was not to be ignored. The complainant served a legal notice on the opposite parties on 24.5.1995 (copy Annexure P-4) and filed the complaint alleging that the non-inclusion of his name in the draw by the Estate Officer is a grave deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant prayed for issuance of a direction to remove deficiency in service by allotting a plot measuring 125 sq. yards in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana and to pay damages amounting to Rs.5,000/- on account of harassment and escalation in costs of construction.

(3.) The opposite parties appeared before the District Forum-I and filed written statement wherein the pleas taken in the complaint were denied to the extent that the income criteria was ever abolished. A copy of the agenda was annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. It was contended that the complainant was not considered as his income exceeded as per the prescribed limit of Rs.8,000/-. The jurisdiction of the District Forum-I was also challenged and it was contended that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint case.