JAI PAL PURI Vs. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -APPELLANT, Mr. Jai Lal Puri, (since deceased and now represented by his widow and daughter, Mrs. Janak Puri and Mrs. Kusum respectively) was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that late Mr. Jai Lal Puri was allotted a plot bearing No. 655-C in Basant Avenue, Amritsar measuring 500 sq. yds. as a 'local displaced person, @ Rs. 84 per sq. yard vide allotment letter dated 7. 1. 1993. The total cost of the plot, which worked out at Rs. 42,000, was deposited by 24. 3. 1993. Upon deposit of the requisite amount when the appellant /complainant approached Amritsar Improvement Trust for handing over the possession of the allotted plot, this was not done on the plea that the matter is pending with the State Government. Finally, the Amritsar Improvement Trust vide its letter dated 16. 11. 1999 informed the appellant/complainant that the market value of the plot was worked out at Rs. 25 lakh and he was required to deposit the balance amount after adjusting Rs. 42,000 already deposited by him way back in 1993. It is in these circumstances a complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint after directing the respondent No. 1 Amritsar Improvement Trust to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 12%, in case the appellant/complainant is not willing to pay the demanded market price. The State Commission arrived at this conclusion relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, II (1999) CLT 135 (SC)=iii (1999) SLT 306=1999 (1) PLJ 341, as well as on the ground that the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of pricing. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) DESPITE several notices none appeared on behalf of the respondents on 23. 4. 2007, 3. 8. 2007 and 24. 9. 2007, but on the final date of hearing, while respondent No. 1 was represented through a Counsel yet despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, hence they are proceeded ex parte.