ALLAHABAD VIKAS PRADHIKARAN vs LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA

PETITIONER was opposite party before the District Forum in a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that it would be better for the complainants to file civil suit. However, his appeal was allowed by the State Commission. It is the petitioner-opposite party who is now aggrieved and has sought to challenge the order of the State Commission.

COMPLAINANT was allotted a plot of land on 10.7.1992 by the petitioner with certain conditions regarding user thereof. Towards price of the plot complainant paid Rs. 40,000/- on 18.8.1992 and Rs. 60,000/- on 22.8.1992. Then the complainant was told that price of the plot had been increased and he was asked to make further payment which he did. Total payment made by him was thus Rs. 1,25,020/-. He got formal possession of the plot on 16.4.1993. In spite of his repeated requests documents of title were not executed. Alleging deficiency in service complainant filed his complaint before the District Forum. Now the stand of the petitioner was that allotment of plot of land in favour of complainant was illegal and that the plot could not have been aliened to the complainant. No reasons were given as to why it could be said that the allotment of the plot was illegal. It would, therefore, appear that complainant could not construct on the plot of land. As a matter of fact. State Commission found that the stand of the petitioner was untenable. State Commission, therefore, was of the view that there was no reason or ground existing for the petitioner not to execute sale deed and get it registered. State Commission, therefore, held that complainant was entitled to compensation for non-registration of the documents of title while the allotment was made on 10.4.1992. State Commission, therefore, directed that the amount of Rs. 1,25,020/- deposited by the complainant towards price of the plot shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date when various amounts deposited by the complainant towards purchase price of the plot. State Commission also gave direction for execution of the sale deed, State Commission granted Rs. 2000/- as compensation to the complainant and also Rs. 2000/- as costs.

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Complainant had been unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 1,000/-.