VEERVATI vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA HOUSING BOARD

THE unsuccessful complaint appeals against the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint at the very threshold on the basis of a preliminary objection raised.

SINCE the matter is in a narrow compass of remanding the same for fresh trial the facts may be noticed with utmost brevity. It suffices to mention that the Haryana Housing Board had advertised for applications for allotment of MIG houses built by it at Ambala. In response thereto the complainant applied and deposited 10% of the cost of the house alongwith the application and another 10% at the time of taking possession, in May, 1990. His grievance was that he was forced to deposit another amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the enhancement of the price and also directed to pay Rs. 903/- per month as instalment. With regard to the latter the complaint was that the other allottees similarly situated were paying Rs. 787/- only, and consequently he knocked the door of the District Forum to seek relief.

The respondent-Board in its written statement took up and pressed the preliminary objection that the appellant was not a consumer and thus the complaint was not maintainable. The case set up was that the allotment was made in the name of Smt. Veervati Sharma and even through the appellant held a general power of attorney on her behalf and he had no locus standi in the proceedings.

THE appellant took up the firm plea that he had filed the complaint in the capacity of an attorney of the original allottee Smt. Veervati Sharma and as such he was entitled to maintain the complaint. THE District Forum took the view that the appellant had not personally purchased the house and hired the services for consideration. THErefore, he was not a consumer and further that the appellant had not placed a copy of power of attorney on the record. Consequently the complaint was dismissed at the very threshold. We are afraid that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained both as a matter of fact and as of law. As noticed already an adverse inference was raised against the appellant on the ground that a copy of power of attorney was not filed. However a perusal of the record would show that a duly executed power of attorney by Veervati Sharma and bearing her signature and having all the India of an authentic document including the same being stamp paper of Rs. 15/- bearing attestation of the concerned officer is part of the file. Apparently this has missed consideration and the order of the District Forum is not sustainable on that score alone.

EVEN otherwise the view of the District Forum that because the original allotment and purchase was in the name of Smt. Veervati Sharma her constituted attorney could not maintain the proceedings is equally unsustainable. Apart from the statutory provision of law it has to be highlighted that the consumer jurisdiction refreshing has a tilt against technicality and the procedural hassles of the civil jurisdiction. It is worth highlighting that no formality or technicality of pleadings for preferring the complaint is prescribed either by the Act or rules framed thereunder. The issue in this beneficent jurisprudence have to be one of substance and not merely of form and technical procedure. EVEN if any minor infirmity of this nature arises the same is a correctible one and before the redressal agencies the consumer is not to be short circuited of his rights because of minor procedural infirmities. Lastly in this context what deserves highlighting is the definition of a consumer who hires any service under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act. Therein a consumer is not merely the person who hire any service but actually includes any beneficiary of such person when the same as availed of with the approval of the original hirer. Let again the recent amendment of the said definition has further extended the same by inserting that it includes not only the person who hired the service but also one who "availed" such services and further brings within its compass any beneficiary of such service. Reference in this connection may be made in II (1991) CPJ 90, Dr. B.S. Sidhu v. The Secretary, Central Govt. Post & Telegraph Department & Others. Therein after an in-depth discussion it was held that a person other than the original consumer who hires any service can maintain a complaint for the alleged deficiency therein and further that the approval of the original consumer need not be given expressly in writing and may well be by necessary implication as well. For the fore-going reasons this appeal must succeed on the finding that the appellant was a consumer, and we are constrained to set aside the order of the District Forum and remand the matter of its trial on merits in accordance with law. The appellant is also entitled to his costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal allowed with costs.