news details |
|
|
| SCC directs JDA to pay Rs 50,000 for harassment | | | early times report
Jammu, Feb 20: State Consumer Commission Co-mprising (SCC) Justice Bashir A Kirmani (rtd) President and DK Kapoor Sessions Judge (Rtd) as Member in an appeal has directed Jammu Deve-lopment Authority to pay Rs 50,000 to the appellant on account of rental payments made, harassment suffered and agony undergone by him together with cost of litigation.
This significant judgment passed in an appeal filed by Suresh Sharma against order passed by Divisional Forum on May 19, 2010 rejecting appellant's complaint against JDA on the ground that deficiency of service alleged was not made out on records. Ground pleaded is that the Forum below did not appreciate the controversy in its right prospective. During course of submissions appellant's counsel while reiterating the contents of appeal has also quoted certain judgments which if necessary may be discussed in due course. None is present to be heard for respondents who appear to have been proceeded against in ex-parte after for none appearance.
Commission after hearing the parties observed that It appears that way back on April 29, 2006 appellant was allotted a parcel of land by respondent (Jammu Development Authority) for Rs.1,06,000/- paid in full, where-after respondents executed a lease deed in his favour on September 29, 2006 and handed over the plot to him on 30th the same year, but to his dismay when appellant started raising fencing wall it was not permitted by some third party claiming that the land was disputed and subject matter of litigation between them and the respondent, JDA, wherein order of status quo had been passed by Civil court on 06.11.2006. Perusal of the photo copy of interim order sheet of the concerned civil court reveals that after status quo order of November 6, 2006 the counsel for respondent, JDA appeared as a defendant on November 14, 2006 and clearly had knowledge of status quo order in view whereof obviously respondents were not capable to "deliver" possession of the land to appellant on November 30, 2006. Obviously JDA acted in a mischievous manner and while pretending to give him possession of his purchased plot simply passed the burden of litigation to him and under the pretext of handing over possession exposed him to the wrath of somebody he hardly knew and on whose instance the status quo order had been passed.
Bonafide approach on behalf of respondents would have been to have the status quo order vacated and then only handed over possession to the waiting appellant, or else give him another plot free of encumbrance for the hard earned amount of Rs.1,06,000-/ he had paid them. Respondent should also have hesitated in executing a lease deed regarding the disputed parcel of land already under litigation. Calling it a mere deficiency in service would perhaps be too soft a description of the apparently malafide attitude of respondents. It is a simple callousness hardly expected of a statutory authority that the respondent, JDA is. Perusal of the impugned order also reveals that while addressing this aspect of the matter the Div. Forum opined that JDA was not in knowledge of the status quo order which was to be valid till the "date of next hearing" only and not binding on appellant. As regards JDA's knowledge of the civil suit, this observation runs counter to the photocopied record of civil court proceedings on record and thus extraneous. That he was not bound by the status quo order could not have occurred to this poor appellant as the juristic opinion of learned Forum was not then available to him.
As a matter of fact the attitude of the learned Forum below appears to be contentious towards consumer, appellant rather than compassionate as it should have been; reason being that consumer law has not been enacted to cover the sleight of hand by heartless authorities but for providing protection to consumers against it and allowed the appeal and impugned order over-set with the direction that respondent, JDA shall allot a plot of land equal in measurement to one subject matter of lease deed between them and the appellant preferably in the same locality or in immediate vicinity thereof or at the most within municipal limits of Jammu within a period of two months from now without charging any additional amount from the appellant. Should that result in pecuniary loss to them they would be at liberty to recover the same from authorities/officers responsible for identification of plot and the sham handing over of possession. Respondent, JDA would also be liable to compensate the appellant on account of rental payments made, harassment suffered and agony undergone by him together with cost of litigation, which all is quantified at Rs.50,000/- recoverable at the option of appellant. Registration of whatever documents required to be done subsequent to the allotment of plot in appellant's favour in terms of this order would totally be at the cost of JDA. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
