KAPOOR SINGH Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.11 lakhs against the Improve abuse of process of law, barred by time and having no merit even on the facts pleaded, deserves to be dismissed at the preliminary stage without issuing notice to the opposite parties.

(2.) Kapoor Singh, complainant is an employee of the Improvement Trust, Batala. As per the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plot Rules, 1983), he applied for allotment of a plot under a special quota fixed for employees of the Improvement Trust. The allotment was sought for 6 Marla plot. The Improvement Trust passed the resolution allotting one plot No.21 (ii) in Radhey Krishan Scheme and referred the resolution to the State Government for approval. Since possession of the plot aforesaid was not delivered, a civil suit was filed by Kapoor Singh for mandatory injunction, directing the Improvement Trust to issue the allotment letter in respect of the aforesaid plot. When notice of the suit was received by the Improvement Trust, the suit was contested by filing written statement wherein it was asserted that the State Government had declined to grant approval. Hence no allotment could be made in favour of the complainant. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Appeal filed against that judgment and decree was dismissed the Appellate Court. The complainant filed Regular Second Appeal in the High Court, which was admitted on February 2, 1995. On an application made in the aforesaid appeal, an order was passed on July 14,1995, restraining the Improvement Trust from making further allotment of the plot to any other person. Subsequently, the matter of allotment having already been made to Malkiat Kaur, the application filed by Kapoor Singh was dismissed as in fructuous on September 12,1995. In the present case, it is asserted that the Regular Second Appeal in the High Court would take about 20 or 25 years for disposal and the complainant being aged about 60 years is not expected to wait so long and hence he was filing the present complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the Improvement Trust in not delivering possession of the plot putting him to suffer damages. Some details of such damages likely to suffer are mentioned in para 17 of the complaint. In the prayer clause, compensation to the tune of Rs.11 lacs was made.

(3.) The FORA established under the Consumer Protection Act are supposed to act within the four comers of the Act itself. The Act has been made to help the consumer as defined and to protect his rights which are exploited by the traders or others whose services are hired and they commit deficiency in rendering the same. The consumer as defined has been to be a person who has purchased the goods and on defect having been found therein, deserves to be granted the relief regarding such goods or compensation for loss suffered etc. Likewise, a person can be a consumer, if he hires services of the opposite party on consideration and points out any deficiency in rendering service. At the outset, it may be stated that the complainant in the present case cannot be considered as a consumer as defined to invoke jurisdiction of the FORA established under the Act. The basis of the complaint is a resolution alleged to have been passed by the opposite party, the Improvement Trust, deciding to allot a particular plot as mentioned above to the complainant. No allotment letter in response to the aforesaid resolution was issued to the complainant. The resolution was sent to the State Government for approval, which was not granted. Thus, by merely passing of a resolution by the Improvement Trust, which was not implemented or even communicated in the form of allotment letter to the complainant, no right vests in the complainant with respect to the aforesaid plot. At the most, status of the complainant before actual allotment is merely that of a prospective applicant for allotment. Reliance placed on some of the decisions of the National Commission in the complaint itself is misplaced. "huda of karnal V/s. Mahabir Singh and Another".,1994 2 CPJ 67. This is a case where Mahabir Singh and another had applied for allotment of plot who were unsuccessful in the draw of lots. The HUDA did not pay them interest on the initial amount deposited and the District Forum and the State Commission allowed the complaints directing the refund of the amount with interest. It was in such circumstances that the National Commission held that by making applications for allotment, the complainants were consumers and entitled to refund and the interest. The ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand. No prayer for refund of earnest money, if any or interest thereon is being claimed in the complaint. The only right that an applicant has is for consideration of his name alongwith others in the matter of allotment and if unsuccessful to get the money back with interest. The present is not a case of that type. Present is a case where application of the complaint stands rejected and the grouse of the complainant is that he was wrongly denied the allotment. In such circumstances, he could be held to be consumer with respect to the plot in dispute only when allotment letter is issued to him. Admittedly in the present case, no allotment letter was issued. As a consequence, the complainant cannot claim any compensation for non allotment of the plot when his right to allotment has not been established.