Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/12/732

Smt. Rajkumari Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gwalior Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 732 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 06.03.2012 passed in C.C.No.276/2011 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

SMT. RAJKUMARI JOSHI,

W/O SHRI NARENDRA JOSHI,

R/O DURGA VIHAR COLONY,

BEHIND DRP LINE SCHOOL,

GHOSIPURA, JAIL ROAD, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

RAVI NAGAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                   …. RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 24.02.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.276/2011 whereby the complaint filed by her has been partly allowed.

 

-2-

2.                The case of the complainant in short is such that she had applied for allotment of plot in Anand Nagar Scheme. The opposite party informed her that the plot is not available in Anand Nagar Scheme. Thereafter she had applied for allotment of plot in Shatabdipuram Scheme of the opposite party. She was allotted plot no.151. It is alleged despite making payment the opposite party did not execute sale-deed in respect of the allotted plot. It was informed that since the sale deed of the allotted plot is not possible, consent for another plot was obtained from her, which she had given. Despite that the opposite party did not allot her plot which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint admitting allotment of plot no.151 to the complainant. However, raised objection that for the amount deposited between 1990 to 1995, the complaint filed after a period of 15 years deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. It is admitted that the complainant had given consent for substituted plot but since the dispute regarding possession and demarcation arose, and since the plot was not in possession of the opposite party, the same could not be allotted to the complainant. The opposite party is ready to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 5% p.a. There is no deficiency

 

-3-

in service on part of the opposite party and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission though holding that the complaint is time barred directed the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of last deposit i.e. 24.03.1995 within one month.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in giving contradictory finding. The District Commission has directed the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 5% p.a. which ought to have been 24%p.a.

7.                Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record as also the impugned order, we find that in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the District Commission has given contrary findings. On one hand it is held that the complaint is not maintainable as barred by limitation and on the other hand it is held that as per proposal of the opposite party, the complaint is being disposed of by directing the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 5% p.a. from the last date of deposit to the complainant within a period of one month.

 

-4-

8.                In this view of the matter we are of a considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law.

9.                In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the matter be remanded back to the District Commission for deciding the matter after giving proper finding in accordance with law. Record of the case be sent to the District Commission at the earliest.

10.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 28.03.2023.

11.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.  All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties be afforded opportunity to contest their respective claims.

12.              It is expected from the District Commission to decide the case within a period of three months from the date of appearance of parties.

13.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs.

           

                      (A. K. Tiwari)               (D. K. Shrivastava)

               Presiding Member                   Member