2007 (3) CPR 209
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
R.S. Mongia, President; C.P. Budhiraja and Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Members
Nachhattar Singh—Complainant
versus
State of Punjab through Secretary
& Anr.—Respondents
Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 2006
All decided on 23-5-2007

IMPORTANT POINT
There is a deficiency of service on the part of OP’s when they refused to allot a plot to the complainant’s as Local Displaced Person for the acquisition of their land for OP’s scheme.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 3 and 2(1)(g)—Eligibility of the complainant to ask for a plot as a LDP (Local Displaced Person) for his acquired land in addition to compensation—Acquisition in1964—Claim made in 1987 and earnest money deposited—Late application and deposit but with permission of then Chairman, Sale Deed executed but that file is missing—Department alleging fraud—Complainant alleging late acceptance permissible under instructions issued in Department letter dated 3-8-1983—Whether OP can oppose late prayer by complainant? (No)—Case law referred—P&H Surjit Kaur’s case relied on and Supreme Court’s Sampuran Singh case distinguished and Shakuntala Devi’s case decided by NC relied on—Whether it is a deficiency in service of OP? (Yes)—Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act applied—Complaint allowed.

       Held: In our opinion, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the order passed in Surjit Kaur’s case (supra) and, therefore, there is no valid ground to deny relief to them, more-so because respondent No. 2 entertained the claim of Shri Banarsi Dass, who had deposited earnest money after late Shri Joginder Singh and allotted plot to him as LDP. (Para 10)

       Held further: In our opinion, the proposition laid down in Sampuran Singh’s case has no bearing on the facts of this case and the petitioners cannot be denied relief by presuming that the allotments made to Banarsi Dass and others were illegal. That apart, it is not the case of respondent No. 2 that late Shri Joginder Singh did not fall in the category of LDP or he was otherwise not entitled to allotment of plot in that category. Thus, there is no valid ground to decline the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a mandamus to respondent No. 2 to allot a residential plot to them. (Para 12)

       As observed above, it’s not the case of the respondents that the complainant is otherwise ineligible for allotment of a plot as a local displaced person. The only ground for rejection of his case was that the application and the earnest money had been deposited very late. (Para 14)

        Once a liberty was granted to the complainant to seek, in accordance with the law, any remedy available to him including the filing of a civil suit we are of the view that apart from remedy of a civil suit remedy under the CP Act would be available as the remedy under the CP Act is in addition and not in derogation of any other remedy. If this Commission comes to the conclusion that there is some type of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents certainly this Commission can entertain a complaint. We will hereinafter determine as to whether there is any deficiency in service or not. (Para 15)

       Held thereafter: The only point not to be determined is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents when they refused to allot a plot to the complainant. If an order is passed against the rules and regulations framed by the authorities or similar decision taken by the authorities in similar circumstances are ignored while passing an impugned order or the decision of a High Court or of Fora under the C.P. Act or for that matter any direction by a civil court is ignored we are of the view that there will be deficiency in service on the part of the authorities. In the present case, while passing the impugned order not only two judgments of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in similar circumstances in Surjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (CWP No. 6801 of 2000 decided on 2.11.2000) and another judgment in ‘Gurdev Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and another’ (CWP No. 17248 of 1999 decided on 24.4.2001) have been totally ignored arbitrarily. Even similar orders passed by the Department in similar circumstances, which have been noticed in the earlier part of the judgment have also been totally ignored by the Department. Consequently, we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The case of the complainant was fully covered by two judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court referred to above as also the judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 1672 of 2002 titled ‘Shakuntala Devi & Ors. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust’ decided on 6.4.2005. The judgment of this Commission has been upheld by the National Commission. (Para 17)

       For the foregoing reasons, we allow these Consumer Complaints and direct the respondents—Ludhiana Improvement Trust to pass an order of allotment of suitable plot of 500 sq. yards size to the complainants under ‘Teachers Colony Scheme’. In case the plot is not available in that scheme the complainants may be allotted a plot in another scheme which may have been framed by the Trust or may be framed by the Trust. These directions are in consonance with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 6801 of 2000, the operative portion of which has already been reproduced above in the earlier part of the order. In the peculiar facts of these cases, we make no order as to costs. These directions be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. (Para 18)

       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 27 and 24A—Complaint about deficiency in OP’s service to reject claim of complainant as LDP for acquisition of his land—Order passed on 26-11-2004 and complaint filed on 6-6-2006 within 2 years—Whether in time? (Yes)

       Held: Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the complaint is time barred. We do not agree with him. The order of the Committee is dated 20.11.2004 whereas the complaint was filed on 6.6.2006 i.e. within two years of the passing of the order by the Committee. Apart from that the complainant did not sleep over his rights as he challenged the decision of the Committee dated 20.11.2004 by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 17179 of 2004 which was disposed of on May 1, 2006 (Order quoted above) (Para 16)

       Result: Complaint allowed.