AVAS AYUKT, U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD vs Ramesh Chandra Gupta

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.7.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 513/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a plot in Transport Nagar with the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. THEre was an auction of the land for residential purposes in this scheme. It was notified that the auction shall be held on 23.4.1981. THE complainant, being the highest bidder for Rs. 73,188/- for plot No. A-68 measuring 228 sq. yds., deposited according to rules a sum of Rs. 14,638/- being 20% of the bid amount. THE complainant deposited the said amount in the Syndicate Bank, Meerut. After deposit of 20% of the amount, the complainant was in the hope of getting the agreement executed with the Avas Vikas, but nothing was done. It is further mentioned that it was orally informed to the complainant that he will have to deposit 33% of the total amount after deducting 20% already deposited and thereafter the amount was to be paid in instalments. Since 23.4.1981 the complainant is running to the office of Avas Vikas but nothing has been done. THE complainant thereafter issued notices dated 7.7.1984 and 3.9.1985 requesting for execution of the agreement with respect to the plot in dispute. By letter dated 26.10.1985 the opposite party invited the applicant to attend the office of the Avas Vikas. It was informed by the clerk of the opposite party that a reply has been sent to the complainant, but the complainant has not received any reply and he apprehended some foul play. The opposite party in its written version has agreed that this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and on the merits the entire amount which was required to be deposited after the bid, namely 33% of the amount was not deposited by the complainant.

The learned District Forum, after perusing the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on behalf of the Avas Vikas and hence it directed that the complainant shall pay the balance price and the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the complainant by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. It was also mentioned that if this is not possible then the amount deposited by the complainant should be refunded to him along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Cost of Rs. 500/- and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. It is an admitted fact that the plot was purchased by the complainant in auction and thereafter the amount was deposited. Now the dispute is whether 20% of the amount only was to be deposited by the complainant or 33% was to be deposited as alleged by Avas Vikas Parishad. The complainant deposited 20% of the bid amount. As 33% of the amount was not deposited, therefore, the allotment was cancelled. The complainant had moved an application before the learned District Forum. In para 5 it has been mentioned that the applicant has deposited 20% of the bid amount and was waiting for the agreement to be executed. In para 6 he has mentioned that the applicant was orally informed that the applicant had to deposit 33% of the total amount after depositing 20% already deposited and thereafter the agreed instalments shall be paid by the complainant. Thus this goes to show that the complainant knew that he had to deposit 33% of the amount and not 20% of the amount. This application was moved before the District Forum in August, 1992. Thus we find that the complainant knew very well that he had to deposit 33% of the amount. As he did not deposit that amount the allotment was cancelled. Thus the fault was on the complainant and not on the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.

IT is further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad that the complaint is barred by limitation. According to learned Counsel for the Avas Vikas, the cancellation of the allotment of the plot was done on 23.4.1983 and it was conveyed to the complainant. As the complaint has been filed in the year 1992 after a lapse of nine years, hence the same is barred by limitation. This contention of the learned Counsel for the Avas Vikas Parishad is correct because the complainant knew that his allotment has been cancelled on 23.4.1983. In an application moved on 21.5.1992 before the learned District Forum, the complainant had mentioned that he suddenly received a letter that the cancellation of the allotment has already been made on 23.4.1983. Thus it goes to show that the complainant was in the know of cancellation of his allotment. Hence the complaint which was filed after nine years of the cancellation is barred by limitation. Thus keeping in view the facts of the case, we find that the complainant cannot get any relief and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.