RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Complaint No. 97 of 2000

Meerut Public School, West-end Road,

Meerut Cantt. through its Manager

Shri Tara Chand Shastri.                           ....Complainant.

Versus

Meerut Development Authority through its

Vice Chairman, Civil Lines, Meerut.         …..Opp. Party.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

None responds.

Date  22.8.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This complaint has been filed by the complainant for awarding Rs.11,98,864.00 with 18% interest and Rs.50,000.00 as damages for mental and financial damages. 

 The case, in brief, of the complainant is that the complainant had registered for purchasing plot in Ganga Nagar Housing Scheme of the Meerut Development Authority/OP for construction of a school by depositing the registration fee of Rs.5,000.00 on 31.7.1989. The OP informed vide letter dated 29.7.1989 that a plot measuring 6470 sq. meters was decided to be allotted on the condition that the Vice Chairman and the Secretary of the OP may be included as the members of the committee of the school. The complainant, accordingly passed the resolution accepting the condition which was

(2)

communicated by letter dated 10.8.1989. The OP had informed the complainant about the cost of the plot to be Rs.9,26,437.50 for the plot and asked the complainant to deposit 25% i.e. Rs.2,31,609.37 till 5.12.1989 with the OP. The complainant accordingly deposited the aforesaid amount on 4.12.1989. Thereafter, the OP vide letter dated 22.3.1990 asked the complainant to deposit the remaining 75%  of the cost i.e. Rs.6,94,828.13 as per instalments mentioned therein with interest @ 17.5% in 5 equal instalments of Rs.2,19,680.00. The complainant deposited the first instalment of Rs.2,19,680.00 on 11.4.1990. The complainant thereafter, vide letter dated 11.4.1990 proposed the OP to make the total payment of the balance amount in 4 equal quarterly instalments prior to April, 1991 and requested the OP to inform the complainant after refixing the instalments accordingly. The OP informed vide letter dated 19.11.1990 that the proposal of allotment of 2 acres of land for institution of the complainant in Ganga Nagar Residential Scheme was sent to the Government for approval. Thereafter, the OP vide letter dated 5.10.1991 accepted the proposal of the complainant and after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant re-fixed the 4 quarterly instalments and asked to deposit the first instalment of Rs.1,38,632.00 up to 20.10.1991.  The complainant deposited the first instalment on 19.10.1991. The possession of the said land was to be delivered on payment of allotment money  but despite payment of amount of Rs.5,94,921.37 paid upto 19.10.1991 the possession of the land was not delivered so

(3)

the complainant requested the OP to deliver the possession of the allotted land and instead the OP vide letter dated 15.1.1999 informed the complainant that the said allotment of the plot was cancelled on 18.12.1998. The complainant was shocked but thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 20.3.1999 requested the OP to allot proposed land measuring 5000 sq. meters against the original rates in favour of the complainant's institution for its primary section in the aforesaid scheme in phase-III and also requested to deliver the possession and to inform any additional amount payable so that it could be deposited without any delay but the OP did not deliver the possession of the said plot hence, the complainant vide letter dated 24.6.1999 requested the OP to return the total amount deposited of Rs.5,94,921.37 with due interest to the complainant. The plot measuring 6470 sq. meters allotted to the complainant was re-allotted to another person and even the second plot measuring 5000 sq. meters was also allotted to another person without any intimation to the complainant.  Out of the total amount of Rs.5,94,921.37 deposited by the complainant, the OP refunded a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 on 31.8.1999 and Rs.2,55,683.00 on 9.9.1999. Thus, a total amount of Rs.5,05,683.00 was refunded by the OP and in spite of repeated demand of paying the remaining with interest, the OP did not make payment of any amount to the complainant. The OP neither delivered the possession of the allotted land, nor refunded the due amount to the complainant which is clear cut deficiency on the part of

(4)

the OP, therefore, the OP be directed to make payment of Rs.11,98,864.00 with 18% interest from 31.8.1999 till final payment is made and also make payment of Rs.50,000.00 for mental harassment and financial damages and amount of Rs.10,000.00 for cost of this complainant.

          The OP filed their WS submitting therein that the complainant deliberately kept on deferring the payment of the amount due and from perusal of the letters dated 5.5.1991, 30.4.1993, 11.6.1993, 6.10.1993, 21.9.1994, 6.10.1994, 8.3.1995, 1.10.1997, 24.7.1997 and 30.8.1997, it is clear that the request for making payment for the amount due was made by the OP to the complainant who neither deposited the due amount nor responded to the letters. The complainant did not complete the formalities as the lease-rent and other dues were not paid therefore, the allotment order was cancelled by the Secretary when there was no other option. Vide letter dated 15.1.199, the complainant had asked for getting the payment schedule modified as per his own wish which was agreed by the OP. The complainant was sent letters from time to time requiring the complainant to get money deposited against the complainant for construction of the school but the complainant did not come forward to deposit the money due. The complainant deposited the first instalment for a sum of Rs.1,38,632.00 on 19.1.1991 but after that he did not deposit anything, as is evident from perusal of the letter dated 5.10.1991 written by the Jt. Secretary of the OP. Since the complainant did not deposit the instalment

(5)

nor deposited the lease-rent and stamp duty and paper, hence, lease-deed could not be executed. In fact, the complainant was also allotted another plot measuring 8093.71 sq. meters for the play ground of the school but the complainant did not deposit anything against the said plot also. Since the formalities were not completed and due amount not deposited hence, the allotment order was cancelled and thereafter, the OP was at liberty to allot the said plot to anybody. As per law of the OP if the allotment done in favour of a person is cancelled on the ground of non payment or on the basis of the request for refund, if the allotment is cancelled then in both the cases, the OP is empowered to deduct 15% of the deposited amount and balance amount to be refunded to the parties and accordingly, after deducting 15% of the deposited amount, the balance amount was refunded to the complainant. The present complaint is not maintainable as the loan was allotted for commercial purposes for construction of the school and not for any charitable purpose. As the Meerut Public School is not charitable and was an industry to earn huge amount of money by way of admission, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

          The complainant has filed affidavit of Tara Chand Shastri and has filed photo-copies of the receipts, letters, allotment letter, certificate of deposit of amount copies of letters.  

          None appeared to argue the case from either side.

(6)

          In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had applied for allotment of a plot for establishing an institution by registering with the OP and that a plot measuring 6470 sq. meters was allotted to the complainant. The disputed point according to the complainant is that despite depositing Rs.5,94,921.37 the possession of the plot was not delivered and instead  allotment was cancelled and when refund was asked for, then the OP refunded only Rs.5,05,683.00 out of total deposited amount and that too without any interest. Therefore, the OP had committed deficiency in service in first not handing over the possession of the plot and thereafter, not refunding the total amount with interest. On the contrary, the disputed point according to the OP is that the complainant did not deposit the cost of the plot as per the schedule of the instalments of the amount to be deposited despite money demanded in this regard nor did it fulfill the formalities of depositing the lease-rent and providing the stamp paper. Hence, the OP did not commit any deficiency in service in canceling the allotment order and refunding the amount as per the rules of the Development Authority i.e. of deducting 15% of the amount deposited and refunding the balance amount.

          So, now, it is to be seen as to whether the complainant did not deposit the required amount as per schedule of the allotment letter. If so then its consequences. It is also to be seen as to whether the OP has committed deficiency in service in not refunding the total amount deposited by the complainant with interest, if so its consequences.  

(7)

Both the aforesaid points are related to each other, therefore they are decided together.

From the allotment letter dated 22.3.1990, it appears that the plot measuring 6470 sq. meters was allotted to the complainant in Ganga Nagar Avasiya Yojna. The estimated cost of the plot was Rs.9,26,437.50 and after deducting the amount of Rs.2,31,609.37 deposited earlier by the complainant a sum of Rs.6,94,828.13 with 17.50% was payable in 5 yearly instalments and the amount of early instalment would be Rs.2,19,680.00. So as per this allotment letter, the complainant deposited the first instalment of Rs.2,19,680.00 on 11.4.1990. It appears that subsequently, the complainant requested for refixing of the instalments which was allowed by the OP and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 1,38,632.00 was deposited by the complainant on 19.10.1991 but there does not appear to be any evidence to show that the complainant thereafter, deposited any of the remaining intalment for the payment of the balance amount. It is the case of the complainant that they kept pestering the OP for handing over the possession of the plot but the possession was not given. It is astonishing that the complainant is totally silent as to why he did not make payment of the remaining instalments. In this regard, it is noticeable that the OP has sent a number of letters, the details of which are given in the written statement that the OP asked the complainant many a times to deposit the balance amount due and also to deposit lease-rent and stamp papers etc. for the lease-deed to be executed and the possession to be handed over

(8)

but the complainant did not fulfill the formalities required as also did not deposit the amount due. There does not appear to be any justification for the complainant in not depositing the instalments for payment of the balance amount. The last amount deposited by the complainant was on 19.10.1991 and the matter kept up so many years without anything being done by the complainant with regard to fulfilling the formalities and hence, the OP cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 15.1.1999 and when the complainant asked for refund of the amount then the OP refunded Rs.5,05,683.00 out the amount of Rs.5,94,921.37 on the ground that as per rules of the OP in case of cancellation of allotment on non-payment of the entire cost, the amount is to be refunded with 15% deduction and therefore, as per the rules out of total amount deposited by the complainant, 15% of that amount was deducted and the balance amount of Rs.5,05,683.00 was paid to the complainant. Since the complainant has not been able to justify the non payment of the instalments due for payment of the balance amount, therefore, the OP were well within their rights to deduct the amount as per rules and refund the balance amount to the complainant. Even though, the complainant had deposited about Rs.5,94,921.37 with regard to the plot in question but the complainant has miserably failed to justify the non-payment of the instalments due therefore, there does not appear to be any deficiency in service on the part of the OP in either canceling the plot as there was no option but

(9)

to cancel the plot or to refund the amount as per rules of the Authority, therefore, we do not find any deficiency on the part of the OP. The complaint has no merit in this complaint which is liable to dismissed.

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                  (Sanjai Kumar)

               Presiding Member                     Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.2