Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 120 of 2024

Kshetriya Prabhandhak, U.P. Industrial

Corporation EPIP (Present name Kshetriya

Prabhandhak, U.P. Audhyogik Vikas Pradhikaran)

Shastripuram, Post, Sikandara, Agra-282004      …Appellant.                                                                         

Sri Manish Kumar Mittal s/o Sri Mohanlal Mittal,

R/o 8/205, Freeganj Crossing, Agra-282004  .…Respondent.

Present:-

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President.

Sri Shiv Prasad Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Date 19.9.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President: The present appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 4.2.2020 passed by the ld. District Consumer Commission-II, Agra in complaint case no.60 of 2009, Sri Manish Kumar Mittal vs. Kshetriya Prabhandhak, U.P. IndustrialCorporation EPIP.

          Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant has booked a plot measuring 1200 sq. meter on 16.8.2002 for his livelihood and deposited Rs.51,000.00. The opposite party allotted a plot measuring 600 sq. meter on 29.10.2003 whereas the complainant has applied for 1200 sq. feet plot. The complainant is in business of assembly of generator and the allotted plot was not fit for the same, therefore, the complainant has requested to allot the plot as applied by the complainant. The opposite party assured the complainant that plot no.C-10 and C-11 will be allotted to the complainant. On the assurance the complainant again deposited Rs.64,750.00 on 27.11.2003 through pay order no.08323 but the opposite party again allotted the plot no.C-89 measuring 600 sq. meter in place of assured plot no.C-10 and C-11. Since the size of the plot was small therefore, the complainant could not start his business and requested for cancellation of the plot and sought refund of the amount deposited by the complainant. But the opposite party instead of refunding the amount, issued demand notice on 18.6.2015, 24.12.2005 and 9.3.2006 for depositing the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the ld. District Consumer Commission.

The opposite party filed their written statement stating therein that the complainant did not deposit the balance amount hence, the plot was cancelled and the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,63,965.79 as interest to the opposite party.

At the time of argument the opposite party was not present. After hearing the complainant, the ld. District Consumer Commission proceeded ex-parte and passed the following order:

“परिवाद एकपक्षीय रूप से स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को एक माह के अंदर परिवादी द्वारा एडवांस के रूप में दिया गया धन मु0 1,15,750/- रू0 परिवाद दाखिल करने की तिथि से वास्‍तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक 07 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज के साथ अदा करेगा। परिवाद व्‍यय के रूप में विपक्षी परिवादी को मु0 3,000/- रू0 अलग से अदा करेगा। शेष अनुतोषों हेतु परिवाद अस्‍वीकार किया जाता है।”

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred.

The appeal has been filed with delay. An application for delay condonation has been filed alongwith affidavit in which is it stated that when the complainant came to about the ex-parte order dated 4.2.2020 then he filed misc. application no.23 of 2021 against the order which was heard on 14.12.2022 and the order was reserved and thereafter, he could not aware with the order and when the recovery notice was served upon the appellant then he came to know about the aforesaid order and thereafter the appeal has been filed. The delay is not intentional and is liable to be condoned.    

          I have heard Sri Shiv Prasad Kushwaha, ld. counsel  for the appellant and gone through the entire material available on record and the impugned judgment and order.

          Ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, perverse and against the provision of law. Ld. District Consumer Commission has passed the impugned judgment without application of mind. The ld. District Consumer Commission ignored the evidence filed by the appellant/opposite party.

          Having heard the ld. counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order, I find that there is no merit in the instant appeal because the appellant was appeared before the ld. District Consumer Commission and filed the written statement and thereafter, he did not pursue the case and was absent on the date of argument.

          The appellant was aware with the proceedings of the ld. District Consumer Commission but it seems he intentionally has not appeared before the District Consumer Commission and filed the appeal with delay of about 4 years and the explanation given to the huge delay of about 4 years is not satisfactory. The appeal is liable to be dismissed on ground of delay alone.

          As far as the merit is concerned, the appellant/opposite party has committed serious deficiency in service against the respondent/complainant because the complainant/respondent has deposited Rs.51,000.00 for allotment of a plot measuring 1200  sq. meter on 29.10.2003 but the complainant was allotted a plot measuring 600 sq. meters.  When the complainant requested to allot the plot as applied by the complainant,  the opposite party assured the complainant that plot no.C-10 and C-11 will be allotted to the complainant and on the assurance the complainant again deposited Rs.64,750.00 on 27.11.2003 but the opposite party again allotted the plot no.C-89 measuring 600 sq. meter in place of assured plot no.C-10 and C-11. Since the size of the plot was small therefore, the complainant could not start his business and requested for cancellation of the plot and sought refund of the amount deposited by the complainant. But the opposite party instead of refunding the amount, issued demand notice on 18.6.2015, 24.12.2005 and 9.3.2006 for depositing the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the ld. District Consumer Commission.

          After taking all aspects of the matter, the ld. District Consumer Commission passed the impugned judgment and order, which in my opinion needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.    

If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree  as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

          A certified 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                                    

JafRi, PA I

Court 1