MUNICIPALITY, GAJSINGHPUR Vs. KAMALJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.05.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in "Kamaljeet And Ors. versus Municipality, Gajsinghpur", vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the District Forum Sriganganagar in consumer complaint No. 59/M/2015, was set aside. The District Forum vide said order had concluded that the charge under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for non-implementation of the orders of the Consumer Fora against the opposite party was not made out. The State Commission, however, allowed the appeal and held that the complainants were free to initiate proceedings against the OPs under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant, Tulsidass had made application on 07.05.1985 to the opposite party (OP), Municipality, Gajsinghpur for allotment of a plot under weaker income group, whereupon Plot No. 6DE was allotted to him. The lease amount of Rs.686/- was also deposited by the complainant on 13.05.1985 through receipt No. 39/65. However, the actual demarcation and possession of the said plot on the spot was not given by the OP for a long time. In the consumer complaint bearing No. 74/2013 dated 01.02.2013 filed by the complainant, a direction was sought upon the OP to carry out the earmarking and demarcation of the plot and issue NOC for construction on the same and also to provide compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony etc. alongwith Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. It was stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant had continuously remained in contact with the opposite party (OP), but he was not given the said plot.

(3.) In reply to the consumer complaint submitted before the District Forum, the OP stated that the complainant/allottee had not carried out the construction work on the plot within 2 years as per the condition of allotment. The complaint had been filed by him after about 28 years of allotment made on 13.05.1985 and hence, it was barred by limitation. It was admitted, however, by the OP that Plot No. 6DE had been allotted to the complainant in the year 1985. The OP also stated that on applications filed by the complainant, directions were issued to them by the District Collector for allotment of an alternative plot. They had accordingly written to the State Government for their approval for allotment of a similar plot. However, the decision was pending with the State Government.