Decided on January 04,2021

Nagarpalika, Jaisalmer And Anr. Appellant


C.VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER, J. - (1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 08.10.2013 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (for short "State Commission") in First Appeal No.156/2012 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) Case of the Respondents/Complainants was that the mother of the Complainants, late Smt. Omwati had applied for allotment of a 35 x 70 ft plot under the Laxmi Chand Sawal Residential Scheme which was floated by the Opposite Parties. Along with the Application Form, she submitted Rs.7,000/- as well as her widow card. In the Application Form at Serial No. 10, she had stated that she was the widow of a 'Freedom Fighter, Indian Army'. The Opposite Parties accepted the application but it was placed under General Quota and not Defence Quota. When the Complainants sought a copy of all the applications submitted under the scheme, via RTI, they found that their mother's application was not listed under the Defence Quota. They also found that under Defence Quota, there were a total of 28 plots available out of which only 25 plots were allotted and therefore the Opposite Parties could have allotted a plot under Defence Quota. Aggrieved by the actions of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a Complaint before the District Forum :- "1. That due to not placing the application of mother of the complainant in the proper category by the non-applicant - Department, the mother of the complainant was deprived from the plot allotment and therefore, on the above application, by lottery, order of allotment of plot size of 35 x 70 ft., out of the remaining 3 plots of the defence quota, may kindly be passed and an order be passed for handing over the possession of the same after executing the perpetual lease deed and registering the same after taking balance amount as per the price on the relevant day 2. Mental, financial and physical harassment is caused to the complainant while visiting non-Applicant again and again shock was caused to the complainant due to the said reason and he remained under treatment under medical observation for approximately 12 months, wherein, approximately, Rs.1,00,000/- have been spent and unnatural death of mother due to above mental shock and due to which the complainant suffered financial, mental loss and towards that the complainants are entitled to get amount of Rs.80,000/. 3. The no-applicant be directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants. 4. Any other relief, which is in the interest of justice, may kindly be allowed to be given to the complainants from the non-Applicant."
(3.) The case was contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Parties before the District Forum who stated that the Complainant had not annexed the certificate of widow of defence personnel who died in war, as required by the Application Form. They further stated that there was no quota for allotment of land to the widow of a 'freedom' fighter. It was further stated that freedom fighters do not fall in the category of defence personnel and no evidence was placed on record that Late Smt. Omwati's deceased husband was a defence personnel. On the basis of information submitted by late Smt. Omwati, her application was not placed under the defence quota.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.