1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 21.09.2017, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 670/2009, wherein the Appeal filed by the OP/Appellant (Respondent herein) was allowed and set aside the Order dated 31.03.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar (“District Forum”) in CC No. 176 of 2007.

2.      For the sake of clarity, the parties are referred to as stated in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Dhram Vir Singh is referred to as the Complainant/Petitioner (Respondent before the State Commission). New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is identified as OP/Respondent (Appellant before the State Commission).

3.      Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that on Complainant's application, the OP issued a Provisional Allotment Letter on 25.01.2007, allotting a flat to him under the EWS Scheme, with an area of 40 square meters. The Complainant received this letter 02.02.2007, indicating a total flat cost of Rs. 7,84,000/-. The Complainant paid registration fee of Rs.85,000/-, with balance to be paid as per the terms outlined in the allotment letter. However, the allotment letter did not specify the flat number or sector. Despite this, the OP instructed the Complainant to deposit the entire amount at once and stipulated possession timeframe of 3 years, making it difficult for the Complainant to secure financial assistance from any institution. Consequently, he surrendered the allotted flat, expecting a refund of the entire deposited amount with interest. However, the OP only refunded Rs.75,000/-, deducting Rs10,000/-.Despite multiple requests, the deducted amount of Rs.10,000/- was not returned. Feeling aggrieved by the OP's failure to return the balance, he filed a CC No. 176/2007 seeking compensation totaling Rs.25,675/- on various heads, alleging unfair trade practices by the OP.

4.      In reply, the OP admitted the issuance of Provisional Allotment Letter to the Complainant and the surrender of the allotted flat as well. The OP clarified that the specific flat number was to be assigned after a draw, as per the terms outlined in the allotment letter itself. However, as no draw had occurred under the scheme up to the date of surrender, flat number could not be allocated to the Complainant. Further, the OP asserted that the surrender was made by the Complainant after the lapse of 30-day period specified in the allotment letter. Consequently, the OP claimed the right to deduct Rs.10,000/- from the deposited amount. After this deduction, the OP returned the balance to him. Therefore, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice occurred, and his allegations were false.

5.      The learned District Forum after hearing both the parties vide Order dated 31.03.2009, allowed the complaint and passed the following order :

"ORDER

The case is accepted. The Opponent is directed to pay to Complainant Rs.10,000/- along with 9% annual interest from 26.04.07 till last payment is made within two months from the receipt of order.

Again the Opponent is ordered to pay within above time frame Rs.2,500/- for mental agony and in the form of case expenses Rs.2,500/-”

(Extracted from True Translated Copy)

6.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Appellant / OP (Respondent herein) filed an Appeal No. 670 of 2009 before the learned State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 21.09.2017, allowed the Appeal and set aside the Impugned Order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the District Forum in CC. No.176 of 2007 and dismissed the Complaint with the following observation: -

“In this connection after hearing both sides and observing all the circumstances and all records we find that the surrender of flat was not done within 30 days and the deduction was to be done after 30 days and deducting Rs.10,000/-, Rs.75.000/- have been paid to the complainant which is clear from paper no.30. And thus, we find that order passed by District Consumer Court for providing Rs.10,000/- with 09 percent annual interest is not lawful and s against the allotment and thus we find that the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by District Consumer Court is likely to be rejected. According to which the appeal of appellant is likely to be accepted.

ORDER

  The appeal of appellant is accepted and the judgement/ order dated 31.03.2009 passed by District Consumer Count, Gautam Budh Nagar in case no,176/ 2007 is rejected.”

(Extracted form True Translated Copy)

7.      Dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 21.09.2017, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition No. 3582 of 2017.

8.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that the OP failed to conduct a manual lottery system, specify sector numbers, flat names, and floor numbers in the Provisional Allotment Letter dated 25.01.2007. Additionally, no information regarding the manual lottery draw was published in newspapers as promised in the Respondent's Brochure. Banks did not provide financing for this scheme, leaving the Petitioner with no choice but to surrender the EWS Flats. It was emphasized that the Respondent should adhere to the same procedure for counting the 30-day grace period. If the Respondent considers the date of the Provisional Allotment Letter, then the date of the Surrender Letter should be considered, or if the dispatch date of the Provisional Allotment Letter is considered, then the dispatch date of the Surrender Letter should be considered. He emphasized that Clause No. 6 (Kha) of Brochure did not have the provision that the 30 days grace is to be counted from the date of provisional allotment letter. The Respondent did not produce any record of dispatch Speed Post/ Registered post receipt because the provision allotment letter was not dispatched on 25.01.2007. And it was fabricated by late dispatch or giving back date. It was a duty and moral responsibility of Respondent to ensure the dispatch of provision allotment later the same date as was affixed on it by not doing so the Respondent rendered poor service an unfair trade factors, which give more economic loss and time consumption to the respondent.  Additionally, the Respondent did not follow their own rules regarding holidays or Sundays falling on the 30th day. The surrender was done within 30-day grace period, as admitted by the Respondent themselves on 23.02.2007. Therefore, deducting Rs.10,000/- from the registration money constituted unfair trade practice, lack of service, and physical and mental torture for the Petitioner. Relief was sought for the return of the deducted money along with interest at 13% and compensation totaling Rs.45,000/- on various grounds.

9.      Per contra, the Counsel for the Respondent/OP argued that the Order of the State Commission is valid and legal and did not exceed its jurisdiction nor fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, nor did it act illegally or with material irregularity. He reiterated the facts stated before both fora, highlighting that the Respondent published the allotment scheme on 27.10.2006, which closed on 27.11.2008. The tentative cost of the flat was Rs.7,84,000/-, with a registration amount of Rs.85,000/-. The Petitioner applied for and was allotted EWS flat vide Provisional Allotment letter dated 25.01.2007. This letter was sent to him by post on the same date. The 30-day period expired on 23.02.2007 from both the date of the allotment letter and the date of dispatch. The Petitioner dispatched the surrender letter on 24.02.2007, which was received on 27.02.2007, exceeding the 30-day period as per the Brochure. Hence, the deduction of Rs.10,000/- from registration amount and returning Rs.75,000/- is appropriate. Further, as it was Provisional Allotment letter and did not include details such as the Sector number, Floor Number, and Flat Number, which would only be provided upon completion of the project estimated to take 2-3 years.

10.    Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and prused the entire material on record, including the orders of both the fora.

11.    The main issue is whether the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.10,000/- deducted by OP on account of cancellation of flat allotted. It is a matter of record that Shri Dharamveer Singh, the Complainant had applied for allotment of flat under EWS LIG/MIG/HIG flats notified by the OPs by submitting Application No.19685 dated 20.11.2006 and paid Rs.85,000/- as registration charges. As against the said Application, the OP had issued a provisional allotment letter for 40 Sq Mtrs EWS Flat against the same. Subsequently, this scheme was notified vide the Notification of the OP No. 2006/07(H) (02) with the terms and conditions, including the tentative cost of the flat as Rs.7,84,000/- for the 40 Sq Mtrs super area allotted to the Complainant. As he had already paid the Registration money of Rs.85,000/-, the balance payable by him was Rs.6,99,000/-. This amount was to be paid within a period of 60 days from the date of issue of the said Allotment Letter i.e. 25.01.2007. Further, in terms of Page-4 Para-6 of the said Notification for the project issued by the OP, acknowledged by the Complainant, reveals that, if the Applicant (Complainant) withdraws his application before the issue of allotment letter, the registration money deposited by him will be returned, without any interest. If the Applicant surrenders the flat within 30 days from the date of issue of the said provisional allotment letter dated 25.01.2007, the whole registration money deposited will be returned. Further, if the Applicant surrenders the flat after 30 days and within 60 days from the date of provisional allotment letter, then Rs.10,000/- for EWS category will be deducted from the registration money of the complainants will be returned without interest.

12.    It is also a matter of record that the Allotment Letter is dated 25.01.2007 and that the Complainant had surrendered the flat on 27.02.2007. The Complainant failed to establish any evidence to indicate that he surrendered the flat within lapse of 30 days from the date of Allotment Letter dated 25.01.2007. Therefore, I did not find any error apparent or impropriety in the order passed by the learned State Commission in FA/670/2009 dated 21.09.2017. RP No.3582/2017 is, therefore, dismissed.

13.    There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.