RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

 Appeal No. 2531 of 1999

Meerut Development Authority, Meerut

through its Secretary.                                     ….Appellant.

Versus

Nilesh Agrawal s/o Sri I.P. Agrawal,

R/o House no.227, Moaida Mohalla,

Lal Kurti, Meerut.                                      ….Respondent.

Present:-

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

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Sri S.K. Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Date  12.4.2018 

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.8.1999, passed by the District Forum, Meerut in complaint case no.595 of 1997.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had himself registered for allotment of plot measuring 180 sq. meters in Shatabdinagar Yojna of the appellant/OP and had deposited Rs.8,000.00 on 14.9.1989 for the plot costing Rs.81,000.00. The appellant/OP demanded Rs.2,000.00 additional amount which was duly deposited by the respondent/complainant on 18.11.1989. Plot No.B-382  Type-C was allotted to him. The complainant was informed through letter dated 24.2.1991 that he had to deposit the balance amount through 8 half-yearly instalments of Rs.6,625.00 each. He was also informed

(2)

that the possession of plot shall be given in the beginning of 1992. The complainant deposited the first instalment on 11.3.1991 but he was not given possession of the plot in 1992. Instead he received a letter dated 15.7.1993 wherein the cost of the land was increased to Rs.1,08,000.00 and the instalment was also increased to Rs.7,812.50. The complainant contacted the OP for escalation of the cost but no reply was given. Besides, the possession of the plot was not given thereby also he was harassed. The complainant asked the OP to provide the plot on the original cost of Rs.81,000.00 but he was not given possession hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant on the aforesaid grounds in the Forum below wherein the OP filed their WS mentioning therein that the complainant had not deposited any instalment after depositing the first one and hence, he had become defaulter. Besides, the final cost of the plot in question came to be Rs.1,08,000.00 and that the complainant had never contacted the OP for giving possession of the plot. Besides, he had not completed the formalities and therefore, the complainant was not entitled to get the refund of the amount and his complaint was liable to be dismissed. The ld. Forum, thereafter, passed the impugned order on 5.8.1999, as under:-

          "एतद्द्वारा विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को उसके द्वारा जमा की गई राशि जमा करने की तिथि से भुगतान की तिथि तक 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्‍याज के साथ में अदा करें। इसके अतिरिक्‍त विपक्षी परिवादी को इस परिवाद का खर्चा 500/- रू0 भी अदा करें।"

(3)

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that the appellant/OP has filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that the complainant had not deposited the instalments due. Besides, the appellant had given offer to the complainant for changing the plot but the complainant did not accept that with the intention of getting full refund only but the ld. Forum passed an erroneous order without considering the aforesaid facts, which is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.  

Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the entire records. None appeared for the respondent.

          In this case, there is no dispute that the complainant was allotted a plot, the original cost of which was Rs.81,000.00 and that he had deposited Rs.8,000.00 as registration amount and thereafter, Rs.20,000.00 and had also deposited the first instalment of Rs.6,625.00 out of 8 such half yearly instalments as per letter dated 24.2.1991 issued by the appellant/OP. It is also not disputed that possession of the plot was to be given in 1992 but the same could not be given and that the cost of the plot was increased to Rs.1,08,000.00 and the instalment was also increased to Rs.7,812.00 vide letter dated 15.3.1993 issued by the appellant/OP. The disputed point according to the appellant is that the complainant had not deposited the instalments due and therefore, he became defaulter and therefore, there was not deficiency in service committed by the OP and therefore, the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order wrongly.           

So now, it is to be seen as to whether the appellant/

(4)

OP had committed deficiency in service in not providing the plot in question within the time prescribed for the purpose, if so, its consequences. 

In this case, the appellant has not provided the copy of the complaint as well as the written statement filed before the Forum below. However, from the impugned order and the grounds taken in the appeal, it transpires that the complainant was to be provided with the possession of the plot in question in 1992 but the possession of the plot was not provided in 1992 and instead the cost of the plot in question was increased from Rs.81,000.00 to Rs.1,08,000.00 on which the complainant raised objections and asked for plot to be provided to him on the original cost of Rs.81,000.00 and in case the appellant failed to do so then to refund the entire amount deposited by him with interest. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the complainant had became defaulter as he had not deposited any instalment after depositing the first one and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the appellant's part but it is clear that the appellant/OP had not only increased the cost of the plot but had also not given possession of the plot as promised. It is also borne out from the records that the appellant has offered the complainant to take an alternative plot which shows that the appellant was not in a position to provide the allotted plot. So not only the appellant defaulted in not giving possession of the plot in 1992 but also increased the cost of the plot and therefore, the complainant was compelled to demand refund of the amount with interest which was

(5)

not refunded to the complainant and therefore, the appellant did commit deficiency in service. The ld. Forum has, therefore, rightly concluded the deficiency in service committed by the OP and thereafter, has passed the impugned order for refunding the amount with interest. We do not find any justification to interfere in the same. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.     

 ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

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

         (Vijai Varma)                       (Raj Kamal Gupta)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.2