CHANDER REKHA Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.05.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 825/2008, "Dr. Chander Rekha versus Improvement Trust, Barnala & Anr." and FA No. 841/2008, "Barnala Improvement Trust versus Dr. Chander Rekha," vide which appeal no. 841/2008 filed by the Barnala Improvement Trust was accepted and FA No. 825/2008 filed by Dr. Chander Rekha was dismissed. These two appeals have been filed against the order dated 2.07.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, vide which the consumer complaint no. 746 filed on 22.11.2007 by the petitioner / complainant Dr. Chander Rekha had been partially allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case on record indicate that there have been two rounds of litigation between the same parties. In the first round of litigation, the consumer complaint no. 79/2002 was filed by Dr. Chander Rekha against the respondent/OP Improvement Trust on 20.11.2002, which was decided by the State Commission on 29.08.2005. Two appeals were filed against this order before the National Commission which were decided vide order dated 17.03.2010 by this Commission, and the OP Improvement Trust was directed to make a payment of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the complainant and also Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation. The present complaint is second complaint no. 746 filed on 22.11.2007 before the District Forum which was decided on 2.07.2008. The impugned order has been passed by the State Commission in the second complaint.

(3.) The brief facts of the case giving rise to the consumer complaints are that the complainant / petitioner Dr. Chander Rekha is a Doctor by Profession and stated to be practising at Barnala, Punjab. The OP, Improvement Trust Barnala brought out a scheme for allotment of sites for nursing homes in their "22 Acre Scheme" on 07.05.1998. The complainant was allotted a site measuring 686 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 25.06.1998 in the general category for a sum of Rs. 14 lakh. As per the allotment letter, 25% of the total amount in question was already deposited and the remaining amount was to be deposited in five equal half-yearly instalments alongwith interest. An agreement between the parties was also executed on 28.07.2000. It has been stated that as per clause 8 of the allotment letter dated 25.06.1998, the building was to be constructed and completed within 3 years from the date of issue of the allotment letter, after getting demarcation of the plot on site, and after getting the building plan approved from the OP. It was alleged by the complainant in her first complaint no. 79/2002 that although the whole amount was deposited with the OP, the demarcation and possession of the plot had not been given and hence, she was entitled to compensation from the OP for the same and also the possession of the plot. The State Commission vide their order passed on 29.08.2005 allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lakh as compensation on account of loss of interest on her money, which was kept by the OP from 24.12.2000 to 04.09.2003, the date on which the physical possession of the site was handed over to the complainant and on account of loss in business, mental harassment, etc. Against this order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the State Commission, two appeals were filed before the National Commission one by the complainant Dr. Chander Rekha and the other by the OP / Barnala Improvement Trust. The OP took the stand that since the plot had been allotted for a commercial purpose, i.e., for a construction of the nursing home, the complainant was not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the Trust had not done any deficiency in service to the complainant. The National Commission vide their order dated 17.03.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the OP / Improvement Trust, Barnala, but partly allowed the appeal filed by the complainant Dr. Chander Rekha and modified the order of the State Commission, stating that the compensation payable by the OP to the complainant shall be