Arguments heard.

Order after lunch.

      (AFTER LUNCH)

           Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) by which petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.12.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P. (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (Appeal No.1824 of 1996).

2.       Initially, Consumer Complaint was filed by one Smt. Sunita Chaudhary, who unfortunately died during the pendency of the proceedings and her legal heir Mr. R.C. Chaudhary, her husband has been brought on record.

3.       Brief facts of this case are that deceased was allotted house under Self Financing Scheme for which she has paid all the installments before time.  After getting the allotment letter, when she did not get the possession of the allotted house, she wrote a letter dated 04.04.1994 to Respondent No.2/Opposite Party praying that she would be given possession of the house, otherwise respondent shall be liable to pay penal interest.  Instead of giving possession of the house, respondent no.2 sent a letter no.662 dated 25.01.1995 asking her to pay a sum of ₹2 Lakh by 28.02.1995, failing which she shall be liable to pay interest 18% per annum.  This demand of respondent no.2 was illegal and against the allotment letter.  Accordingly, a Consumer Complaint was filed praying that respondent be directed to pay ₹20,000/- for mental and physical harassment and also to pay interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner till the actual payment of the house @ 24% interest per annum.  In addition, expenses to the tune of ₹2,000/- be also awarded.  It was also prayed that possession of the house be given to the petitioner without any condition.

4.       In their reply filed by the respondents before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (for short, ‘District Forum), it is stated that present complaint does not fall within the purview of the Act.   It is further stated that vide letter dated 06.10.1993, petitioner requested that she is interested in the Corner House No.15/146.  On the basis of the corner plot, final costing of the house was calculated and petitioner was directed to deposit balance amount, vide letter dated 662 dated 15.01.1995 and one month was provided to deposit the same.  In demand letter No.3674 dated 13.08.1993, it was specifically mentioned that cost of the house at present is ₹5,87,000/-.  It was further stated, that vide letter dated 783 dated 28.01.1995, petitioner was informed to get the possession of the house immediately otherwise delay fee of ₹50/- per day will be levied with effect from 01.05.1995.  It was further stated at the request of the petitioner that balance amount will be paid in next one year with 18% interest per annum and after considering that request possession letter was issued on 25.02.1995 and physical possession was obtained on 09.03.1995 by her.  The respondents are not at fault at all and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.       District Forum vide order dated 27.09.1996, partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay 18% interest annually on the amount deposited by the petitioner till the actual payment of house.  Further, a sum of ₹2,000/- was also awarded towards mental and physical harassment.

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same vide the impugned order.

7.       Hence, the present revision petition.

8.       I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

9.       It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that since possession of the house was not given forthwith after the petitioner has made the entire payment, thus there is a deficiency on the part of the respondents.  Further, petitioner is entitled to 18% interest for not handing over the possession of the house within time.

10.     State Commission in its impugned order has observed;

“By seeing the court file, it is evident that house no.15/146 of Self Financing Scheme of Vasundhara Yojna at Gaziabad was allotted through lottery draw.  At that time proposed cost of the house was Rs.5,87,000/-, complaint was to deposit this amount in 7 monthly installment of Rs. 76,716/- and an another installment of Rs.76,714/- since 30.09.1993.  Complainant was also informed that actual cost of house can increase.  It is significant that house in question is a corner house so area of land increased so the cost of house increased Rs.1,61,508/- which was to be deposited alongwith lease rent of Rs.40,446/- till 28.02.1995 and afterward possession was be given to the complainant.  Complainant promised to pay cost of increased land then she was given physical possession of the house on 09.03.1995.  But complainant not paid increased cost of corner land. District Forum has mentioned in his judgment against the fact that complainant has paid maximum value to the opposite party.  In fact initially complaint has paid for 150.30 Sq. Meter but being corner plot its area become 2340 Sq. Meter.  Complainant is bound to pay the value of the increased land to opposite party Parishad but District Forum has passed his judgment and order against the conditions and rules of appellant brusher.”

11.     Petitioner in her complaint itself has admitted in unequivocal terms, that respondent no.2 had sent letter no.662 dated 25.01.1995, asking her to deposit ₹2 Lakh with it by 28.02.1995.

12.     Respondent had also relied upon this letter in its written statement and has stated, that since petitioner had demanded the corner plot as such final costing of the house was increased and petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount with it, vide letter no.662 dated 25.01.1995 by 28.02.1995.  Further, respondent vide letter no.783 dated 28.01.1995, had informed the petitioner to take possession of the house immediately, otherwise delay fee of ₹50/- per day shall be levied since 01.05.1995.

13.     Petitioner, for the reasons best known to it had not placed on record copy of letter no.662 dated 25.01.1995 nor has placed on record copy of letter no.783 dated 28.01.1995, received from the respondents.  Petitioner has selectively filed the documents, which suits him.  Therefore, petitioner by not placing the entire correspondence made between the parties, has deliberately chosen to mislead the consumer fora in this case.

14.     In view of the letter no.662 dated 25.01.1995 and letter no.783 dated 28.01.1995, which were admittedly received by the petitioner and petitioner for the reasons best known to him, has chosen not to  file the same, therefore adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner.

15.     Be that as it may, since possession of house in question has already been delivered to the petitioner, there is no merit in this petition.  Moreover, I fully agree with the reasonings given by the State Commission that since at the request of the petitioner, he was allotted the corner house and as there was increase in the cost of the house, the petitioner was bound to pay the same.

16.     Thus, no infirmity or illegality can be found in the impugned order passed by the State Commission.  There is no merit in this revision petition.  The same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.