Back
2010(1) CPR 153 (NC)
• NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President
Hon’ble Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member
• The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another — petitioners
versus
• Krishan Pal Chander — Respondent
• Revision Petition No. 1583 of 2005
(From the order dated 15.04.2005 in Appeal No.1004 of 1996 of Punjab State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
Decided on 23-11-2009
IMPORTANT POINT
A buyer of plot is not a consumer until plot is allotted to him.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d), 14(1)(d), 15, 17, 19 and 21—Housing—Allotment of plots—Revision of policy—Complainant not remitted balance amount within stipulated period in terms of revised policy—Complainant was not considered for allotment of plot—Petitioner directed by District Forum to allot plot in favour of complainant and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per month—Appeal before State Commission by petitioner not yielded much result—Fora below erred in holding that policies of Government or letters written by petitioner to respondent were not communicated to him—Policies were made public by advertisement in newspapers in response to which, thousands of persons had applied—Respondent was also communicated by registered letters to deposit balance amount, which he did not do—As letters were sent by registered post, it would be presumed that respondent had received the same—Besides, respondent was not a consumer within meaning of Act as no allotment had yet been made in favour of respondent—Order passed by fora below set aside—Revision petition allowed. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14)
AIR 1994 SC 787; II (1995) CPJ 43(NC); IV (2008) CPJ 284 (NC)—Distinguished.
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Complaint—Bar of limitation—Complainant remained silent for 21 years—Limitation for filing complaint had expired—If defendant does not raise plea of limitation, if suit is ex-facie barred by limitation, Court has no choice but to dismiss the same. (Para 9)
(1994) 4 SCC 225; (2005) 4 SCC 613—Relied on.
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)—Consumer—Respondent had only applied for allotment of plot and he was a prospective investor only—Till allotment of flat, respondent had not become a consumer. (Para 13)
Result : Revision petition allowed.
Ashok Bhan J., President —
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “PUDA” for short) – petitioner herein, which was the opposite party before the district consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed the present Revision Petition against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) in Appeal no. 1004 of 1996.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are :-
Complainant / respondent, Sheri Krishna Pal Chander applied for allotment of 10 marlas plot in the Urban Estate Jalandhar on 9.11.1971 at Jalandhar and thereafter, he left for Canada. In the year 1974, Government framed its policy for allotment of plots and it was decided that before any fresh application were considered for allotment of plots in any Urban Estate , the old applications be given the chance of purchasing the plot as per the revised system of payment. Also direction was given to the Director Housing to prepare a detailed list of old applications. This policy was revised in the year 1981 and, as per the revised policy, the plots measuring more than 200 square yards were to be sold by auction. An advertisement to this effect was published in the local dailies for the old applicants to participate in the auction.
3. In the year 1983, the policy of 1981 was changed/ discontinued and old applicants who had applied for allotment of plots at Jalandhar and Phagwara were asked to give their option to participate in draw of lots. An Advertisement to this effect, dated 25.8.1983, was got published. In the year 1994, a fresh policy was framed and an advertisement was given in the press as well as the individual applicants were informed by registered post. At every stage, whenever there was a change in the policy, the government considered the old applicants and a notice to the general public was given.
4. Petitioner informed the respondent about the revised policy through letter dated 6.4.1981 and directed the complainant to remit the balance amount within the stipulated period. However, the respondent did not deposit the requisite balance amount and, hence, respondent was not considered for allotment of plot. Again on 3.5.1994, a letter was written to the respondent to deposit the balance amount before 16.5.1995 which respondent did not deposit. Vide letter dated 12.12.1995, respondent stated that he be allotted a plot either at ludhiana or SAS nagar which falls within the area of Mohali
5. Thereafter, respondent filed a complaint before the district forum ropar on the ground that petitioner had branch office but did not implead Jalandhar office as a party respondent. In the complaint, he admitted that he has not been in India since 1974. It was stated that he had not received the letters written by the petitioner and that the petitioner had failed to render services to the respondent. Petitioner filed its written statement denying all the allegations. It was categorically stated that the respondent had been put to notice on two occasions and that he had failed to fulfill the terms of the proposed allotment and deposit the balance amount. That he had not replied to either of two communications, it was also stated that the district forum did not have the jurisdiction. it was further stated that the respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the consumer protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ) as no allotment had yet been made in his favour.
6. District forum allowed the complaint and gave the following directions:-
(i) The opposite parties are directed to allot a 10 Marlas plot in favour of the complaint in any of the Urban Estates of Jalandhar or SAS nagar (Mohali) within 3 months in accordance with policy/ scheme of the year 1981 as well as the prevailing rates.
(ii) The OP’s are directed to pay a Compensation of R
