APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  28^th NOVEMBER 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.05.2012, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 35/2009, “Lucknow Development Authority versus Shafiq Ullah Khan”, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal on grounds of limitation as well as on merits, the order dated 31.05.2008, passed by the District Forum Lucknow in consumer complaint No. 28/2007, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2.       The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Shafiq Ullah Khan who is a Journalist by profession, booked a type-C building in the year 2000 with the petitioner Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) in their Vastukhand project at Gomti Nagar, for which he deposited a sum of ₹28,000/- on 15.04.2000.  The petitioner/OP allotted a building bearing No. 1/170 to the complainant on 09.06.2000.  The complainant is stated to have deposited all the instalments of money demanded by the LDA as per the details of payment supplied to him.  However, when the complainant contacted the OP for registration of the building in his favour, he was asked to make a further payment of ₹1,81,500/- as the valuation of the building had escalated.  The complainant also discovered that the allotted building was near a burial ground.  On his request, the LDA allotted him another building bearing No. 1/2006 and demanded the additional amount from him.  On his request, the OP granted 50% exemption on the additional amount demanded and directed him to pay a sum of ₹90,746/- vide their letter dated 28.06.2005.  The complainant deposited the said amount with the OP, but still the registration of the building was not done in his favour.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to get the registered deed affected in his favour and also to compensate him with a sum of ₹2500/- per month which was the rent being paid by him and also to pay compensation for mental harassment etc. 

3.       The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP by filing their written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant had deposited a sum of ₹3,73,246/- with them till date and not ₹5 lakh as stated in the consumer complaint.  They also stated that the final cost of house No. 1/266 had been worked out to be ₹3,83,049/-.  The additional demand made by them from the complainant included various charges like the free hold charges, water and sewer charges, corner charges etc.  The OP also stated in his written statement that the registration of the property could not be done because the Vigilance Department had asked for certain information from them regarding the allotment in question. 

4.       The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties passed their order on 31.05.2008, in which they stated as follows:-

“The complaint is being allowed. The complainant is being directed to deposit ₹24,633/- towards the freehold charges, ₹3,000/- towards the water sewer charges, ₹500/- towards miscellaneous charges and ₹40,200/- for the stamp papers within one month from today against the Plot/House No. 1/266 in the Vastu Khand under the Goutami Nagar, Lucknow project before the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party shall give the possession of the building in question and get the registration done within one month thereafter.  No other charges can be levied against the Complainant.

Apart from this the Opposite Party is being directed to pay interest on ₹3,73,000/- @16% per annum from 28.06.2005 till the date of the handover of the possession thereof to the complainant.  The opposite party shall pay ₹10,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony which the complainant had suffered and pay ₹1,000/- as litigation expenses.”

5.       Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  However, the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner/OP is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6.       During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP stated that in compliance of the order passed by the District Forum, the possession of the property had since been handed over to the complainant on 26.05.2011 and a registered deed had also been affected in his favour.  The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that in so far as the direction of the District Forum to pay interest on the amount deposited was concerned, the petitioner and the complainant had entered into a compromise agreement dated 10.01.2011, a copy of which had been placed on record.  As per the agreement, interest was to be paid to the complainant from 31.05.2008 till the date of the agreement on the amount deposited with the petitioner.  The said agreement had been signed by the complainant as well.  The learned counsel stated that the order passed by the District Forum directing them to pay interest @16% p.a. with effect from 28.06.2005 was unfair, as the petitioner was not at fault in any manner vis-à-vis the complainant.

7.       The complainant/respondent who was present in person stated that he never entered into the agreement as stated by the petitioner.  He should, therefore, be given payment as ordered by the consumer fora below. 

8.       I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

9.       The order passed by the District Forum as reproduced above, makes it very clear that the said Forum directed the complainant to deposit various charges, like the free-hold charges, water sewer charges, miscellaneous charges and the value of stamp papers with the petitioner/OP after which the petitioner was required to give him the possession of the property and also to have the registered deed done.  It is evident, therefore, that the possession of the property could not be given and registration deed could not be affected due to non-payment of certain charges on the part of the complainant.  It is to be examined, therefore, whether the direction to pay interest @16% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant with the petitioner was justified or not.  On record, is the copy of the agreement entered between the petitioner and the complainant as per which, the said interest was to be paid with effect from 31.05.2008.  The signatures of the complainant are also there on the said agreement, although he denied the same during hearing before us.  It is necessary, therefore, that the matter should be examined in depth, after calling for the requisite original record from the office of the petitioner in order to know whether there was a valid agreement signed between the parties.  For this purpose, the opinion of a finger-print expert could also be obtained, if found necessary. 

10.       Under these circumstances, the present revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum with the direction to call and hear the parties again after giving them adequate opportunity to lead evidence or produce documents in their favour.  There shall be no order as to costs.