ORAL

             STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                             UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                 APPEAL NO. 1014 OF 2024

(Against the judgment/order dated 28-12-2023 in Complaint Case    No. 66/2017 of the District Consumer Commission, Meerut       

Meerut Development Authority

Meerut

Through its Secretary

                                                                            ...Appellant

                                                    Versus

Pooran Chand, S/o Late Shri Ramlal

R/o House No. 47,

Rajban Chota Bazaar, Karai Ganj

Near Bindra School,

Meerut Cantt.

                                                                             ...Respondent                                           

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant          :  Mr. Piyush Mani Tripathi, Advocate.                           

For the Respondent       :

Dated :  19-07-2024

                                         JUDGMENT

               HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed under Section-41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the judgment and order dated 28-12-2023 passed by District Consumer Commission, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 66/2017.

Vide impugned judgment and order, the District Consumer Commission has allowed complaint and has passed the following order:-

“परिवादी द्वारा प्रस्‍तुत उक्‍त परिवाद विपक्षी मेरठ विकास प्राधिकरण के विरूद्ध आंशिक रूप से स्‍वीकार किया जाता है तथा विपक्षी मेरठ विकास प्राधिकरण को आदेशित किया जाता हे कि वह

:02:

परिवादी को कटौती की गयी धनराशि अंकन-23,000/- रूपये (तेईस हजार रूपये) दिनांक 05.02.2015 से ताअदायगी अन्तिम भुगतान सात प्रतिशत वार्षिक सहित एवं अंकन-5,000/- रूपये (पॉंच हजार रूपये) परिवाद व्‍यय इस निर्णय/आदेश की तिथि से 45 दिन के अन्‍दर अदा करे, अन्‍यथा परिवादी विपक्षी से उक्‍त धनराशि विधि अनुसार वसूल करने के लिए स्‍वतंत्र होगा।‘’

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission, the opposite party has come up in appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

Appeal has been filed with delay condonation application.  Appellant has shown sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. Cause shown for delay is explained, therefore, the delay is condoned

Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party appeared.

          I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party at the admission stage itself and have gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as records of the case.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned District Consumer Commission has erred while passing the judgment and order is in complete contravention to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of HUDA V/s Sunita reported in (2005) 2 SCC at Page 479 wherein it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the matters relating to the statutory charges are not amenable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, there is no provision of providing interest in the brochure and has no right to file a complaint for seeking interest and a refund before the District

:03:

Consumer Commission.

Learned Counsel for the appellant is argued that as per Indian Contract Act, 1857, the borrower is bound to follow the terms and conditions of the brochure, whereas in the present brochure there is a provision which clearly states that in case of cancellation after lottery draw and allotment is done, the money will be refunded after deducting 20% interest.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred clause 6.60 of the brochure which is extracted below:-

“आवेदक द्वारा किसी कारणवश सम्‍पत्ति के लॉटरी ड्रा से आवंटन पश्‍चात् आवंटन धनराशि जमा करने से पूर्व आवंटन स्‍वीकार न कर जमा धनराशि की मांग किये जाने पर जमा आवेदन धनराशि 20 प्रतिशत कटौती के उपरान्‍त वापस की जायेगी।“

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the current plot was allotted to the respondent in lottery and being allotted a flat after the lottery draw informed and there was no such contract or agreement which provides, refunding the deposited amount alongwith interest. The appellant has refunded the deposited amount vide cheque no. 049524 to their respective bank account on the application of the respondent seeking refund of amount.

It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly observed deficiency in services on the part of the appellant and passed the impugned judgment and order making the appellant liable to refund the amount that was rightly deducted by the appellant. There is no justification for the learned District Consumer Commission to award refund with interest on the amount deducted, on the contrary the appellant is entitled to seek

interest from the complainant.

:04:

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant is making an illegal and uncalled demand of refund alongwith interest and has no right to file the complaint before the District Consumer Commission. The complainant cannot be termed as a Consumer within the term, meaning and expression provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the appellant has refunded the entire deposited amount after rightful deduction of 20% to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer anymore and has no right to file the complaint.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the award of refund of Rs.23,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% is illegal and deserves to b e quashed and the cost and damages imposed on the appellant is wholly illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

I have gone through the judgment of the learned District Consumer Commission and according to the findings recorded by the District Consumer Commission, I am of the opinion that the judgment has been passed by the District Consumer Commission after taking into consideration the entire facts and material placed before it. So far as imposition of interest at the rate of 7% from 05-02-2015 till the date of making the actual payment is concerned, the same is liable to be reduced to 06% per annum and is payable from 05-02-2015 till the date of filing complaint within a period of 30 days from today and rest part the of impugned order is liable to be confirmed. With this modification, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.

                              ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order is modified to that extent that the interest awarded by the learned District Consumer Commission is reduced to 06% per annum and is payable from 05-02-2015 till the date of filing complaint within a period of 30 days from today and rest part the

:05:

of impugned order is confirmed.

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) deposited by the appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Commission, Meerut alongwith interest accrued if any, who shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.    

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

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

                 ( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR )

                               PRESIDENT

Pnt.