New Delhi: How far will you go to recover Rs 40 charged wrongfully?
Ask Lekhraj, 70, who fought a relentless legal battle for three years, spent thousands and did not think twice when he had to take a fight to New Delhi from a small village in Himachal Pradesh to get back Rs 40. All because he did not concede to the notion of being wronged.
The septuagenarian stood vindicated last week when the National Consumer Commission ordered the state development authority to refund Rs 40 that it had imposed as a penal charge on Lekhraj in 2014.
The Commission, presided over by Justice D K Jain, minced no words in applauding Lekhraj’s grit and perseverance, as it also awarded a compensation of Rs 5000 to the man who argued his case himself at all three fora.
“The instant case depicts a perfect example of an enlightened senior citizen, who, undeterred by the insignificance of the quantum of the amount, is determined to pursue his cause to vindicate his stand against the high handedness and deficiency in service...,” noted the apex consumer panel.
Lekhraj was allotted a house by the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority, which made him pay Rs 40 as penal charges for reportedly not paying the maintenance amount due. Lekhraj was also threatened with disconnection of basic amenities such as water and sewerage connection if he did not pay up. Left with no alternative, he paid the demand along with the penal charge of Rs 40.
Subsequently, Lekhraj filed a consumer complaint in the district forum at Una but to no avail. In February, 2016, the forum dismissed his complaint on the ground that the additional demand was as per the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter.
Lekhraj appealed against this order before the state consumer commission at Shimla. But the state consumer panel upheld the dismissal order along with a cost of Rs 1,000 to be coughed up by Lekhraj.
Resolute, the septuagenarian came to the national capital with second appeal and stood up before the Commission, questioning the arbitrariness of the HP Development Authority. The Authority also engaged a lawyer who vehemently defended the decision to impose the penal charge.
The Commission, however, pointed out that the Authority could not show the basis of charging Lekhraj Rs 848 when the demand was for Rs 808.
“Manifestly, the threat of disconnection of basic facilities provided to the house, on Complainant’s failure to pay the overdue interest @14% per annum was without disclosing to the Complainant its basis. If such a decision had been taken by the functionaries of the Development Authority, the same had to be notified as per the prescribed procedure. No such decision has been placed on record or even pleaded in the written version filed on behalf of the Development Authority,” it emphasised.
The Commission held the Authority guilty of deficiency in service for not waiving Rs 40 charged wrongfully from Lekhraj, thereby “causing unwarranted harassment to him”.
“The Revision Petition is allowed, with a direction to the Development Authority to refund to the Petitioner a sum of Rs 40 within four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs, quantified at Rs 5,000,” ordered the panel.
Comments
0 comment