|

No
amenities: Admn, MCC pulled up
Tribune
News Service
CHANDIGARH, May 31
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has
criticised the Chandigarh Administration and the
Municipal Corporation for their alleged failure to
provide basic amenities at various residential and
commercial plots auctioned by it in December 1997.
Mr Mohan Singh and
others, in a complaint, alleged that they had purchased a
plot in Sector 33 on leasehold basis at an open auction
held on December 17, 1997, for Rs 26,25,000. While 25 per
cent of the price was deposited at the time of the
auction, the balance was payable in annual instalments
along with an interest. They further said that they were
unable to raise buildings on account of deficiencies on
part of authorities. The deficiencies included lack of an
approach road, drinking-water supply lines, sewerage and
rain-water drainage system, street lights and adequate
plinth level to enable complainants to begin
construction. Some other similar complaints relating to
the residential plots in Sectors 10 and 33-A and
commercial plots in Sectors 39-C, 40-D and Industrial
Area, were also filed.
In its reply, the
administration denied that it was essential to provide
all these amenities at the time of allotment. The
Municipal Corporation, in its written reply, averred that
neither it was aware of the auction nor was it informed
about providing basic amenities at the plots. It came to
its notice much later that basic amenities in the
locality were non-existent. However, after receiving the
information, a survey of the area was conducted.
Estimates for providing aforesaid facilities had been
prepared. The amenities would be provided when an
administrative approval for funds was received.
The commission,
comprising its President, Mr Justice J.B. Garg and
members, Col P.K. Vasudeva (retd) and Mrs Devinderjit
Dhatt held that, "in all the cases, authorities
acted in haste and auctioned various plots, residential
as well as industrial, without providing or arranging
even the basic amenities. It was unfair on their part to
auction a kind of jungle on fabulous prices and to
consider the requirement of basic amenities long after
collection of lakhs of rupees from the complainants.''
They further observed
that the authorities were legally bound to ensure that
the plots auctioned at a high price were fit for
occupation and construction. Since there were
deficiencies and the complainants were held to be
consumers, they had the right to seek redressal under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The authorities had the
means, machinery and authority to make the plots fit for
occupation by the complainants. The members of the
commission held that the authorities auctioned the plots
and collected huge sums, knowing that these were not fit
even for handing over possessions, much less for
construction.
They also observed that
the plots were on lease. In their opinion, in all these
cases, the authorities who have received and are
expecting the lease money, are not free from the
reasonable duties and liabilities they owe to a consumer.
By a common order
allowing many complaints, the commission directed that
the date of auction for the purpose of payment of price
should be deemed to be the date on which plinth level and
all the basic amenities demanded in the complaint were
actually provided. The amounts deposited by the
complainants should earn interest at the rate of 18 per
cent per annum till providing the essential requirements.
They ordered that an officer of the rank of Chief
Engineer of UT or a person next below him should certify
that the plinth level and other basic amenities were
provided. The date of such certificate should be
considered to be the date of the auction. Further, the
interests on the deposited amounts should be payable from
the date of the aforesaid certificates. The instalments
should be rescheduled accordingly. In the order, they
directed that the lease money should be payable from the
date of the certificate mentioned above. The authorities
have also been ordered to pay costs of Rs 3000 in each
case of the above mentioned complaints.
Mattress
co. fined
The District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum-II has directed Kurlon Limited
Chandigarh to replace defective mattresses with new ones
and pay Rs 250 as costs to a consumer.
In his complaint, Mr
Narinder Singh alleged that he had purchased a pair of
Kurlon mattresses of super delux quality for Rs 2,800
from Messers B.K. Furnishings, Jammu, in September 1994.
The dealer had given him a guarantee of two years. The
complainant, working as the Assistant General Manager,
NABARD, was transferred from Jammu to Chandigarh in June
1996. He alleged that during the course of packing of the
household goods, he got to know that the mattresses had
shrunk by over one inch from the centre and had thus been
rendered useless. However, the company did not entertain
the complainant's request for the replacement of the
defective mattresses. Hence, he filed this complaint.
The representative of
the company wanted to examine the mattresses and
submitted his report accordingly. But since he neither
turned up on the date nor filed any report of the
examination, the case was proceeded against ex-parte.
After going through the
records, the forum bench comprising its President, Mr
R.P. Bajaj and member Mr H.S. Walia held that the
guarantee given by the dealer, for a period of two years,
stood. They also held the dealers guilty of deficiency in
service since they failed to honour the guarantee.
|