JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          Late Smt. Godavari Devi, mother of respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.2 was allotted two plots admeasuring 18’x37’ by the petitioner Nagar Palika, Nathdwara.  She deposited the price of the plots vide two separate receipts, both dated 16.02.1983.  The case of the complainants is that the petitioner told her that the allotted plots were situated behind PWD Guest House and asked her to submit the plans for construction of building on them.  The permission for construction of the building was accorded on 01.07.1983 and the requisite charges for this purpose were also deposited on 01.07.1983.  This is also their case that the petitioner had assured them that alternative plots would be allotted to them.  The matter was taken by the complainants before Lok Adalat and the petitioner informed the Lok Adalat on 29.03.2003 that the application of the complainants would be considered in the next meeting.  However, the alternative plots were not allotted to them.  The complainants therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking possession of the allotted plots and execution of the Lease Deed in their favour, besides compensation. 

2.      The petitioner filed a reply contesting the complaint and alleged that the possession of the plots had actually been handed over.  It was also stated in its reply that permission for construction could be granted only after delivery of possession to the allottee.  It was further alleged that since the allottee did not carry out construction, other persons took possession of the plots.

3.      The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainants, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission. 

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consumer complaint was time barred since the allotment was made in the year 1983 and the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2005.  I however, find no merit in the contentions since the alleged failure of the petitioner to deliver possession of the plots despite having received the price of the plots, gave continuous/recurrent cause of action to the complainants to file consumer complaint seeking possession of the allotted plots. 

5.      The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainants cannot be said to be the consumers of the petitioner.  The plots having been allotted to Smt. Godavari Devi, mother of respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.2 and both of them being her legal heirs, they step into her shoes and therefore, can be said to be the consumers of the petitioner. 

6.      On merits, no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner to prove that the possession of the plots had actually been given to Late Smt. Godavari Devi or any other person authorized in its behalf.  The petitioner being a Municipality, would have issued possession letter to the allottee asking her to take possession of the plots allotted to her.  No such possession letter has been produced by the petitioner.  Moreover, ha