Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1004/2016

Jaipur Development Authority Through Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna S/O Kailash Chand Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Meena

25 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 498 /2016

 

Krishna d/o Kailash Chand Sharma r/o Jhalanion ka mohalla, Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk.

Vs.

Jaipur Development Authority through Commissioner, JLN Marg, Indira Circle, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1004/2016

 

Jaipur Development Authority through Commissioner, JLN Marg, Indira Circle, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Krishna d/o Kailash Chand Sharma r/o Jhalanion ka mohalla, Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk.

 

Date of Order 25.5.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

 

2

 

Mr. Umesh Shrangi counsel for the complainant Krishna

Mr. Ajayraj Tantia for Mr.Manish Kumar counsel for JDA

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the same order hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the JDA is that Ex. 3 letter dated 23.3.2011 for change of address was received by them on 27.7.2011 hence, claim should have been disallowed as on the previous address communication was sent and no deficiency has been committed by the JDA.

 

Per contra the contention of the consumer is that on 23.3.2011 vide Anx. 3 she made a request for change of her address which was received by the JDA on the same day and Anx. 1 contains the receipt. Inspite of this allotment letter was not issued to her. Hence, the Forum below has rightly ordered the claim but without any plausible reason 5% interest was allowed which should have been set aside.

 

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The contention of the consumer was that he applied for Nilay Kunj Scheme and paid Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter vide Anx.2 plot was allotted to her. Vide Anx. 3 she informed the JDA for change of her residential address but allotment letter was never sent to her.

 

The contention of the JDA was that allotment letter was sent to her but copy of allotment letter was not submitted before the Forum below. It was the specific contention of the consumer that she wrote the letter Ex. 3 for change of residential address and this fact has not been denied by the JDA in reply to the complaint and the Forum below has rightly held that when allotment letter was not issued to the consumer, the JDA is not entitled for penalty or interest.

Before this Commission vide application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.copy of allotment letter was submitted but nothing has been stated that why this allotment letter was not submitted before the Forum below and further more there is no evidence to show that this letter was ever sent to the complainant.

4

 

The contention of the JDA is that Ex. 3 letter was received by them on 27.7.2011 but again there is no documentary evidence to fortify this contention. Receipt register has not been submitted which could show the date of receipt of the letter. Hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim against the JDA.

 

The Forum below was of the opinion that when allotment letter was not sent to the complainant penalty and interest were not payable. Inspite of this without any legal basis 5% interest is lodged which is contradictory in itself.

 

In view of the above, the appeal of the consumer is partially allowed and order for lodging 5% interest is set aside. The appeal of the JDA stands dismissed.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm