This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.2.2009, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as the ‘State Commission’) in two cross appeals nos.935/SC/99, Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. V. Natrajan and Appeal No.1135/SC/2008,  V. Natrajan vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, vide which Appeal No.935/SC/1997 was allowed and the other appeal no.1135/SC/2008 filed by the complainant was disposed of with the direction that the money deposited by him will  be returned with 6% p.a. interest. It was also directed that the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred as ‘GDA’) will allot a suitable accommodation to the complainant, if available, on the prices prevalent at the time of future allotment.

2.       The facts of the case are that the petitioner, GDA floated an allotment scheme in 1993, called the Patel Nagar/Shastri Nagar, HUDCO Scheme for allotment of houses and invited applications from the general public for the same. The complainant V. Natrajan applied for a house under the Scheme and deposited a sum of Rs.8,010/- as registration money with the Bank designated by GDA on 30.12.1993.  The GDA informed the complainant vide letter  dated 29.6.1994 that he had been declared successful for allotment of house and the house number shall be allocated to him through the lottery system. They asked the complainant to deposit first instalment of Rs.8,000/- with them by 30.12.1994.  However, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.8,700/- on 22.8.1995 which included Rs.8,000/- as the instalment amount and an interest of Rs.700/-. The GDA informed him that House No.C-144 in Shastri Nagar had been  allotted to him and asked him to deposit the  estimated cost of Rs.90,000/- by 28.2.1996 and take possession.

3.       The case of the petitioner/OP is that the complainant did not deposit the requisite amount despite repeated opportunities having been given to him and hence, they were constrained to cancel the allotment and informed him vide letter dated 18.7.1986. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that he had informed the GDA that he had submitted application to the HDFC Bank for grant of loan and the same   was pending with them.  He also requested the GDA to grant permission for the mortgage of the building with the HDFC Bank.  The complainant got knowledge of the cancellation of allotment from letter no.1903 dated 22.10.1986, but he wrote to the GDA many times, requesting that the balance amount should be   accepted and possession of the building should be given.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to allow the possession of the building after payment of the remaining dues or to refund the whole amount deposited by him with 24% interest per annum and also to allow a compensation of Rs.20,000/- on various counts.

4.       In their written  reply before the District Forum, the GDA stated that they had asked the complainant  to deposit the amount in question several times, but following his failure to do the same,  the allotment of the property was cancelled. The building was allotted to some other allottee and possession was also  transferred to him. The OP requested that the complaint should be dismissed.

5.       The District Forum vide order dated 14.5.1997,  after taking into account the averments of the parties,  directed that the amount deposited by the complainant  should be refunded to him alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. Aggrieved against the said order, the GDA challenged the same before the State Commission. Vide impugned order  the appeal filed by the GDA was dismissed, while the appeal of the complainant was allowed,  with directions to the GDA to make allotment of a house from the list of houses declared vacant by them in their advertisement in the newspapers on 4.12.2007 at the rates, which was the final cost at the time of completion of house. In  the alternative, The GDA was asked to make efforts for allotment of another accommodation to the complainant taking into account the final cost at the time of completion of the house. It is against this order that the GDA has filed the present revision petition before this Commission.

6.       The learned counsel for the petitioner GDA stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part,  as they had given many opportunities to the complainant to make payment of the dues to them.  The allotment in question was cancelled following the failure to deposit the amount.  The learned counsel also stated that the order passed by the State Commission was a majority judgment delivered by two Members of the Commission. The third Member,  who passed a dissenting order, had given direction to the GDA to return the  money, deposited by the complainant with 6% p.a. interest. Since the GDA was not in a position to make allotment of any house, the present petition should be allowed and the complaint should be dismissed.

7.       The learned counsel for respondent stated that both the consumer fora below had concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of GDA. The learned counsel further stated that the cancellation order issued by the GDA had not been served upon him.  The learned counsel also stated that  in the letter dated 24.6.1986, the house number mentioned was C-127, Shastri Nagar instead of House No144, Shastri Nagar. In fact, the GDA should have allotted suitable property to the complainant,  as he had made applications for that purpose many years back.

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

9.       The main issue for consideration in the present case is whether there has been any deficiency on the part of the OP,  GDA  in the present case.  It has been amply made clear that the said Authority gave a number of opportunities to the complainant to pay the balance amount for the property and take the possession of the same. It has been admitted by the complainant himself in the consumer complaint that he got knowledge about the cancellation of the allotment from letter dated 22.10.1986 issued by the GDA. However, the contention of the complainant that  he had applied for loan from the HDFC bank and the delay occurred,  as he was seeking permission of the GDA for mortgage of the property, cannot be given any consideration, because  the GDA has no concern  in any manner with the fact whether the complainant was able to raise the said loan or not. The GDA has                                               taken the stand that permission for mortgage of House no.C-144 was sought only after the cancellation of the allotment vide letter dated 18.7.1986. In any case, the complainant has not been able to provide any convincing  explanation as to why he did not deposit the requisite amount in pursuance of demands sent by the GDA from time to time.

10.     Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of GDA in dealing with the complainant  in any manner. The present revision petition is therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside.  The petitioner have taken the plea that they have already deposited the principal amount paid by the complainant with 15% p.a. interest before the District Forum in compliance with order dated 14.5.1990. The complainant shall be entitled to receive that amount from the District Forum alongwith interest accrued thereon. With these observations, the revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.