ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.1107 of 1997

Nand Kishore s/o Shri Ram Prasad,

C/o Syndicate Bank, Kothi Gate, Hapur.     …..Appellant.

Versus

Ghaziabad Development Authority

Though its Vice Chairman.                   ……..Respondent.                                              

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri R.C. Chaudhary, Member

None appeared.

Date     8.12.2014

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member. The appeal taken up for hearing. None responds on behalf of the parties. There is no application either. The Ld. Counsel for the parties are also not present. Since the appeal is pending for the last 17 years, therefore, we preferred to go through the records of the case.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant Nand Kishore applied for an MIG House under Govindpuram Housing Scheme on 23.5.1989 and accordingly deposited a sum of Rs.17,520.00. He was issued a payment schedule for Rs.1,75,800.00 which indicated that the house will be provided to him within a period of two years. However, he was not allotted the house within the stipulated period, therefore, he filed

(2)

complaint case no.640 of 1995 before the Ld. DCDRF, Ghaziabad for redressal of his grievances. The complaint was decided on 10.6.1997 and the OP Ghaziabad Development Authority was directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the principal amount deposited by the  appellant/complainant between the period from 1.1.1994 to 15.3.1996. The appellant was also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000.00 towards mental and physical harassment and cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal on 9.7.1997 for enhancement of the awarded amount.

We have gone through the impugned judgment and order. From perusal of the records and impugned judgment, it transpires that the houses at the situs could not be constructed within the stipulated period due to a stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, the Development Authority can not be held responsible for the same. The appellant/complainant was allotted another house bearing no.H-64 in place of the house allotted to him earlier and he has taken possession of the same by accepting all terms and conditions as given in the brochure. Thus, we fail to read any remiss or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/ Development Authority. The Forum below failed to take notice of this factum before passing the impugned order dated 10.6.1997 although, it has mentioned in the judgment that a house has already been allotted to the appellant and he has taken possession of the same on 16.3.1996. Under the circumstances, we find that the

(3)

appeal has no merit and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

 The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with law.

        (A.K. Bose)                              (R.C. Chaudhary)     

    Presiding Member                               Member

Jafri

ST G-1

Court No.5