Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 2000  of 2000

Kanpur development authority through its

Vice-Chairman.                                                    …Appellant.                                                                         

Veshnu Swaroop Saxena, R/o 471-E, Panki

Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur.                                   .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.

Sri Pramendra Kumar, Advocate for respondent.

Date 2.5.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This Appeal has been filed under section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the appellant against the judgment and order dated  25.07.2000  passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Kanpur  in complaint case no.328 of 1998, Veshnu Swaroop Saxena  Vs.  Kanpur Development Authority.

The grounds of appeal are that, that the learned District Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The learned Forum has failed to consider the averments made by the appellant. The appellant has not committed any deficiency in services. The learned Forum committed both errors of the facts and law in avoiding the interest to the complainant at higher rate of interest. The matter adjudicated by the complainant has complicated matter of fact and could only be tried by civil court. The learned Forum has not considered the pleas taken by the appellant in his written statement. The appellant has to executed the work of the development through specified tender which are approved the

(2)

State Government. The appellant not being a private organisation, is engaged in social welfare of the society and it had been created under the UP Urban Planning Act 1973 and is not involved in any business activities and also not-for-profit earning body. The terms and conditions stated in the brochure could not be read in isolation and it has to be read in uniform meaning and according to law of contract, both parties are liable to be abide by their contract. The Hon’ble National commission has held that the complainant is not entitled for the interest if allotment is not made in favour of complainant. He shall be entitled for only the reserve money which was deposited by the complainant. In spite of the notice given to the complainant to take his deposited money back after verification of the receipt, but the complainant failed to do so. The direction to provide the plot at old rate shall be interference in cost hence such order is unsustainable in eye of law. The impugned judgement and order is improper, erroneous, without any basis of law, without jurisdiction and unjustifiable and has been passed in a most mechanical and arbitrary manner and to be set aside. Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble commission may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and allow the appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Manoj Kumar and  ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri Pramendra Verma. We have perused the pleadings evidence and documents on record. 

In this case the complainant deposited Rs.300.00 as registration fee with KDA on 15 January 1966. On 10 November 1995 his name was entered at serial number 533 in

(3)

the list of land allotment of the opposite party against plot no.586, Block E, Panki, Kanpur (File no.11262). This plot has been allotted to the complainant but no allotment letter has been issued to the complainant. On 16 May 1996, the complainant met the opposite party  for the allotment of the plot who assured him to deliver the possession very soon. On 13 June 1996, the complainant came to know through the news published by the opposite party that possession of plot no 586 E has been given to an a 10 year old allottee after demolishing the illegal encroachment. The complainant met with the opposite party but no action has been taken. The complainant wrote letters to the Union Government and State Government but the opposite party did not obey the order of the Central Government. On 21 June 1996 the plot in question has been allotted to one Mr. Jaspal Singh under an alternative arrangement. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party.

The opposite party has accepted that registration amount has been deposited by the complainant but he has not been allotted the above-mentioned plot but it has been allotted to Mr. Jaspal Singh in whose favour deed has also been executed. The opposite parties stated that the allottees between 1960 and 1975 were asked to take back their money after showing the original receipt. The complainant did not file his old receipt. The complainant did not become entitled for plot by only depositing Rs.300.00. It has been found that there is receipt of the deposit made by the complainant and it is also clear from the letter dated 16 May 1996 that the complainant was invited by the opposite party in relation to plot no.586, Block E, Panki but the opposite party did not

(4)

take any form regarding allotment. The learned Forum on 8 March 2000 order the opposite party to submit the allotment order and other evidence before the learned Forum which the opposite party did not comply.

It is clear that the registration amount has been deposited in regard to aforementioned plot and the complainant was also invited by the opposite party regarding the same plot but the opposite party did not take any further step in this regard. The learned Forum after going through all the evidence ,pleadings and records directed the opposite party that a plot similar to the allotted plot be allotted to the complainant within 30 days and the price should be according to price of 1996 and also directed to pay Rs.10,000.00 as compensation. If a plot has been registered in the name of a person and registration amount has been deposited by him, he is entitled to the plot and if asked to pay the balance amount, we will pay it. In the present case it is very much clear that the opposite party has played a fraud with the complainant and it is a case of deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. The judgment and order of the learned Forum is sound and does not need any interference from this court. The present appeal to be dismissed with cost.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed with cost. The judgment and order dated  25.07.2000  passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Kanpur  in complaint case no.328 of 1998, Veshnu Swaroop Saxena Vs. Kanpur Development Authority is confirmed.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

(5)

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.     

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                   Presiding  Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                   Presiding  Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2