RESERVED

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                              UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                               APPEAL NO. 686/2021

(Against the order dated 11-10-2021 in Complaint Case No. 33/2016 of the District Consumer Commission, Gautam Budh Nagar)

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Plot No.1, Sector-Knowledge Park IV, Greater Noida IV, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar-201308….                                                                     ....Appellant

                                                     VERSUS

1.     Kailash Chand Mishra, S/o Sh T.R. Mishra, R/o Pocket-D, Flat No.910, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.

2.     Punjab National Bank, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 through its Manager…                                                                  ....Respondents

BEFORE:

1.       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

2.       HON’BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant              :  Sri Rajesh Chadha, Advocate

For the Respondents        :   Sri Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate.

Dated : 

JUDGMENT

MR. SUSHIL KUMAR, MEMBER

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11-10-2021 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Gautam Budh Nagar in Consumer Complaint No.33/2016; Kailash Chandra Mishra Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and one another whereby the Learned District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed the respondent no.1 to repay the deposited amount Rs.3,89,000/-  to the complainant after deduction @10% on the deposited amount.

This judgment is challenge on the ground that a time barred case was instituted before the District Consumer Commission, Gautam Budh Nagar. The complainant deposited registration amount Rs.3,89,000/- on 25-11-2013 but failed to deposit the allotment amount Rs.7,78,900/- within 45 days, therefore the amount deposited by complainant was forfeited in favour of authority and nothing was payable or refundable to the complainant. There was no rendering of any deficiency in service on the part of the authority nor any cause of action arises in favour of the complainant to file a consumer complaint, therefore judgment and order passed by Learned District Consumer Commission deserves to be set-aside.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order.

The complainant’s allegation is that the allotment letter was not served to the complainant within time, therefore he could not deposit the balance allotment amount within time to the opposite party no.1/appellant. The opposite party in its written statement contended that the allotment letter was sent on the Mailing Address of opposite party no.2 Punjab National Bank and it was the duty of the bank to provide the allotment letter to the complainant. It is admitted fact that the complainant never mentioned his personal address in the application for registration of flat and he has given the address of Punjab National Bank and mailing address from which he took the loan amounting to Rs.3,89,000 for the payment of the registration charges of flat.

The Learned District Consumer Commission concluded in its judgment in last paragraph that defendant no.1 failed to provide the allotment letter within time and if the Punjab National Bank returned the allotment letter by endorsing that such person is not traceable then it was the duty of defendant no.1 to deliver the letter to the complainant.

Exhibit No. A/6 clears this fact that the complainant submitted an application before the Manager (Property), Greater Noida on 03-04-2014 and mentioned that you have dispatched the allocation cum allotment letter on 29-01-2014 to PNB, Dilshad Garden’s address and no information was given to the complainant. The complainant submitted the surrender application on 11-12-2014. The appellant authority wrote a letter to the complainant on 13-04-2015 and mentioned that the matter is under consideration and he will be informed after decision taken by the authority. It appears that the complainant tried his best to get the information regarding allotment but the appellant authority failed to show due diligence in providing the information regarding allotment to the complainant, therefore the whole registration amount cannot be forfeited under the law. This amount can be returned to the complainant after deduction of 10% as directed by Learned District Consumer Commission.

 Since the complainant regularly contacting the authorities to take the decision on his application but it is the authority who failed to take the decision within time and without informing the complainant that his request is under consideration and the complainant shall be informed, accordingly. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the complainant in filing the consumer complaint before the Learned District Consumer Commission, Gautam Budh Nagar.

Hence, the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Consumer Commission is according to law. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER 

The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11-10-2021 is hereby confirmed.

If any amount deposited by appellant shall be remitted to District Consumer Commission concerned alongwith interest accrued for disposal in accordance with law.

The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.

           (JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR)                                       (SUSHIL KUMAR)                     

                     PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                                                                              

          Ashish

           Court No.1