Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

1- Appeal  No.2840 of 1999

Meerut Development Authority,

Meerut through its Secretary.                              …Appellant.

Versus

Dr. Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Lokesh Kumar,

R/o B-7, Shastri Nagar, Meerut.                       …Respondent.

And

  2- Appeal  No.3280 of 1999

Dr. Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Lokesh Kumar,

R/o B-7, Shastri Nagar, Meerut.                          …Appellant.                                                                          

Meerut Development Authority through

Secretary, Opposite Police Line, Civil

Lines, Meerut.                                            .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi, Advocate for Appellant/MDA.

Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent/

                                                                  complainant.

Date  14.3.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.09.1999 passed by Learned District Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case no.295 of 1999, Dr. Vinod Kumar Vs. Meerut Development Authority.

The brief facts of the appeal no.2840 of 1999 are that, that the Learned District Forum has wrongly understood that even the third plot allotted on the request of the respondent too was not developed and more pertinent fact remains in existence requires adjudication and that for the first time when the plot was changed and after satisfying himself fully on each and every count the respondent has deposited the

(2)

balance amount and the change of second time the same process was adopted in totality and difference amount was too deposited and even after that the respondent has filed the complaint Before the Learned Forum for the refund of the deposited amount without any logic and reasoning and prior to the said complaint the respondent never approached the Appellant for the refund of their money. The Learned Forum failed to consider the crux of the matter that whether the present respondent could be entitled to take the facts from the beginning when he had no locus standi. The learned Forum has also erred in not taking into consideration that the declaration indicating that “I shall accept the deductions made by Meerut Development Authority” and even after this declaration, the learned Forum has passed the impugned order. Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble commission may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgement and allow the appeal.

We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant/MDA Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma. We have perused the pleadings, evidence and documents available on record.

We have seen the impugned judgment. The learned Forum has directed the appellants to refund the deposited amount with interest at a rate of 15% per annum and also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost the suit. If there is the first on the part of the respondent, the appellants were also liable for not constructing within stipulated time. Whatever declaration may be, if there is no construction, no question of any payment arises. In this contest we find that the judgment of the learned Forum is according to law except the rate of

(3)

interest which is on the hard side. In our opinion and as per judgment of Hon’ble courts, it should be 10%. Rest part of the judgment needs no interference.

As for as appeal no.3280 of 1999 is concerned, the appellant/complainant has prayed to enhance the rate of interest from 15% to 18% and also to enhance the cost of the suit to Rs.5000/–. This is not proper and we are of the opinion that the rate of interest should be 10% and cost of the suit awarded by the learned Forum is sufficient therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal no.2840 of 1999  is partially allowed and the rate of interest in the impugned judgment is reduced from 15% to 10% and rest part of the judgment is upheld. Appeal no.3280 of 1999 is dismissed.

Let a certified copy of this order be placed in the record of appeal no.3280 of 1999.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Sushil Kumar)                               (Rajendra Singh)

             Member                                    Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Sushil Kumar)                               (Rajendra Singh)

             Member                                    Presiding Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2