UMESH RAWLLEY Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by this common order we are disposing of four appeals filed against the common order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as District Forum-II, for short], dated 1.7.2004 in two complaint cases bearing No.439 of 2002, Sh. Umesh Rawlley V/s. Chandigarh Administration and Others, and Complaint Case No.440 of 2002, Smt. Prem Lata and Another V/s. Chandigarh Administration and Others.

(2.) Since the complaints are similar, the facts are taken from Complaint Case No.439 of 2002. The complainant was a successful bidder on 12.2.1989 for auction of Booth No.243, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh with a bid of Rs.3,67,000/- as premium and Rs.9,175/- per year as ground rent for 1st 33 years of the 99 years lease. He was issued allotment letter dated 20.3.1989. A sum of Rs.91,750/- i. e. , 25% of the cost was deposited by the complainant with the Estate Officer and remaining 75% was to be paid in three equated annual instalments. These were also duly paid and the ground rent was also paid regularly till filing of the complaint in 2002. Grouse of the complainant is that even though he has paid the entire premium and the ground rent upto the date the O. Ps. have not provided basic amenities promised at the time of auction. These facilities are street light, car parking, link road to car parking, drinking water for the public, public toilets, storm water sewerage. Due to absence of these facilities the complainant avers that full potential of the commercial property cannot be fully exploited. Another grouse of the complainant is that a Rehri Market has been allowed to come up adjoining the market of Sector 40-D. In the complaint the complainant sought following relief: " (1) The complainant having suffered tremendous loss, confine their claim to Rs.3,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony. Hence, a total claim of Rs.4,00,000/- with future interest @ 24% on the said amount till the date of actual payment. (2) The date of auction be re-fixed to the date such amenities are actually provided by the respondents and a certificate to that effect issued by the Chief Engineer. (3) That future recovery be stayed. (4) The costs may kindly be awarded to the complainant. "

(3.) O. P. No.3-Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh pleaded limitation. It also denied that complainant is a consumer qua O. P. No.3. It also stated that water supply line was laid in the area even before formation of the Municipal Corporation, sewerage line was laid in 1990-91 and S. W. D. system exists in the main road. It has also been stated that booths area not entitled to water supply and sewerage connection though they exist in the locality.