ORDER

1.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.      The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2022 of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow passed in first appeal No.1357/2003 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed.

3.      The revision has been filed with a delay of 159 days. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and is suffering from multiple ailments. In February, 2023 he was busy in the marriage of his daughter as there was no one to look after the work. In March, 2023, the petitioner was suffering from high diabetes and respiratory problem and he was advised rest. Further, the complainant was not aware of the impugned order dated 28.10.2022. For the first time, the complainant received the certified copy of the impugned order on 12.05.2023. On 14.05.2023, the petitioner had fracture in his leg. Due to aforesaid reasons, the revision petition could not be filed in time and the delay may be condoned. Subject to objection by the respondent, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay condoned.

4.      The petitioner/complainant has filed consumer complaint No.927/1995 with the District Commission for directing the opposite party to (A) allot and deliver actual possession of the shop in Sanjay Place Commercial Centre scheme; (B) pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the initial deposit of Rs.18000/- from the date of deposit till the date of actual possession of the shop; (C) pay damages of Rs.10000/- to the complainant for business loss, mental torture and undue harassment; and (D) cost of the proceedings.

5.      Shri Rashid Parvez (petitioner herein) applied for allotment of a shop in Sanjay Place Commercial Centre, in a scheme launched by  the respondent/opposite party, on 29.06.1991 by depositing an amount of Rs.18000/-. There was 15% reservation for backward classes and the petitioner also belongs to the backward classes. On 16.03.1993, the complainant read an article in the newspaper that all the shops have been allotted and 1000/- shops will be allotted soon. As the complainant did not receive any intimation from the opposite party, he visited the office of the opposite party but he was not informed about the correct position as to why he was not allotted the shop. He was informed that the shops new are under construction and will be allotted soon, but nothing was done till November, 1995. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum.

6.      The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing the written statement wherein the facts narrated by the petitioner were denied except that he deposited Rs.18000/- as registration charges for allotment of the shop. The opposite party informed the complainant that they shall refund his amount with 6% interest as per clause 9 of the allotment booklet, on production of the original receipt. As the complainant did not produce the original payment receipt, the amount could not be refunded to him.  

7.      The District Forum, allowed the complaint with the direction to the opposite party to give possession of the shop in Sanjay Place Commercial Scheme to the complainant after completing the formalities. If the shop is not available in the scheme, then possession of similar shop should be given to the complainant at his option in any other scheme. He was also awarded Rs.10000/- for harassment and financial loss and Rs.500/- as litigation cost. The District Forum also directed to calculate interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs.18000/- deposited by the complainant from 29.06.1991 till possession and adjust the amount in the actual cost of the shop.

8.      The opposite party preferred an appeal with the State Commission, which was partly allowed, vide order dated 28.10.2022 with the observation that mere registration and deposit of registration fee does not entitle the complainant for allotment of the shop. The State Commission directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.18000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as per terms & conditions of the allotment brochure. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.10.2022, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition.

9.      The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant completed all requirements for allotment of the shop. The respondent committed grave deficiency in service by not giving the status of allotment to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant visited their office on 07.06.1993, 22.02.1994, 21.05.1994 and 05.04.1994 nor the opposite party intimated that the application of the complainant has been rejected. The respondent has taken a false plea before the State Commission that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 05.05.1993 that it was impossible for the respondent to implement the scheme.

10.    It is admitted that the petitioner applied for allotment of a shop in the scheme launched by the respondent by depositing registration amount of Rs.18000/-. As far as allotment of shop is concerned, the respondent has taken the ground that the scheme in question was not implemented. Therefore, there is no question of allotment of the shop to the petitioner. Although the petitioner has taken the ground that the shops were allotted to other persons, but he has not produced the allotment list or any other evidence that the shops were allotted to other persons. Therefore, the only option with the respondent was to refund the amount to the complainant. The District Forum erred in directing the respondent to allot a shop in the name of the petitioner. The State Commission rightly accepted the appeal filed by the opposite party. Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds vs. Kartik Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 held that submission of booking application and deposit of booking amount is merely an offer. So long as there was no allotment, there is no contract between the parties. In the absence of allotment letter by the competent authority, it was not proper for District Forum to direct for allotment. The petitioner cannot be considered as a “Consumer” at this stage. In any case, the petitioner had only right to seek refund of his amount, which has been done by the State Commission. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

O R D E R

          The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.