BAIJ NATH vs Lucknow Development Authority

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-This appeal arises out of the Order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'' for short) whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant by the impugned Order.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the First Appeal are as under:

AS per allegations made in the complaint, appellant/ complainant applied for allotment of plot measuring 25 x 50 metre in Transport Nagar Yojana, Lucknow in prescribed Form No. 0013 and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 through Demand Order No. 034060/1208/92 dated 12.8.1992 drawn at Punjab and Sind Bank, Lucknow on 2.12.1992. It is stated that appellant was allotted plot No. I, Block-C, Phase-II, Transport Nagar, Lucknow on 16.4.1993 by the respondent-Authority. That appellant deposited Rs. 5,87,088 for the aforesaid plot in U.C.O. Bank, Hazratganj Extension Branch, Lucknow Development Authority. That appellant received letter No. 337/JSS dated 24.7.1995 from Joint Secretary of the respondent asking the appellant to deposit the instalment with interest to enable the respondent to give physical possession of the property which was replied by the appellant vide letter dated 7.8.1995 stating therein that the appellant had deposited all the instalments and he was ready to take possession of the property allotted to him by the respondent. That thereafter, appellant had written several letters and also tried to contact the concerned authorities of the respondent for getting the physical possession of the plot allotted to him and requested the respondent that if the said plot is not available in Phase-II, then, he may be allotted any other alternate plot in Phase-I but the respondent never responded to the request made. That on 30.6.2000 appellant submitted an application to one Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, Deputy Secretary of the respondent to refund his money back with interest. That after running from pillar to post, appellant received a refund voucher of Rs. 5,76,088 against the amount of Rs. 5,87,088 deposited by the appellant, after deducting Rs. 10,000. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant sent legal notices dated 27.10.2001 and 6.11.2001 on the respondent claiming Rs. 6,60,300 as interest from 1992 to 2001 @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 10,000 with interest which the respondent deducted at the time of refund. Rs. 1,00,000 were claimed for physical labour, mental agony and expenditure incurred by the appellant for getting the money back. That the respondent neither replied to the legal notices nor paid the amount claimed. Thus, appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission.

ON being served, respondent filed its Written Statement denying all the allegations made by the appellant.

STATE Commission, after taking into consideration, all the pleadings and the evidence lead by the parties, dismissed the complaint. It was held that in view of Annexure 10 which is the letter written by the respondent, it was made clear that the appellant had not deposited the amount towards, 1st, 2nd and 3rd instalments in time. That in Annexure 11, it was admitted by the appellant that he would deposit the 3rd instalment on 30.10.1995, i.e., the due date. That from letter dated 23.12.1995 of the appellant wherein it was written by the appellant that he has to deposit the next instalment, it is clear that the appellant had not deposited the 3rd instalment by 23.12.1995. Amount due towards 4th and 5th instalments was not deposited. That as there was non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the contract, appellant is not entitled to any interest on the deposits made by him and the respondent had the right to deduct necessary amount from the deposited amount and return back the balance amount. State Commission also overruled the reliance placed by the Counsel for the appellant on the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65, holding that the said rulings are not applicable in the present case as there is breach of contract on the part of the appellant as the instalments were not paid in time and there was no inaction on the part of the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, appellant has preferred this Revision Petition.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

APPELLANT was required to deposit the instalments as per Schedule given below in U.C.O. Bank, L.D.A. Extension Counter, 6, J.C. Bose Marg, Lucknow by bank draft drawn in favour of the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority. Instalment Number Due Date Instalment Amount (in Rs.) 1. 30.10.1993 87677.00 2. 30.10.1994 149807.00 3. 30.10.1995 149807.00 4. 30.10.1996 149807.00 5. 20.10.1997 149807.00 6. 30.10.1998 149807.00

THE final balance amount, if any, was to be paid before the registration of the property in the name of the appellant. It was specifically mentioned that if the above mentioned instalments were not paid by the due date, additional interest will be charged and if the payment was not made within 3 months from the due date along with additional interest, if any, the Vice-Chairman of Lucknow Development Authority has the right to cancel the allotment in which case deductions as per Rules were to be made.

ADMITTEDLY, appellant paid the instalments as under: S. No. Amount (Rs.) Mode of Payment Date 1. 50,000 Pay Order No. 034060 12.08.1992 Receipt No. 13947 2.12.1992 2. 37,667 Paid Draft No. 035845 29.10.1993 Receipt No. 23739 30.10.1993 3. 50,000 Draft No. 035893 4.11.1993 Receipt No. 23751 6.11.1993 4. 1,49,807 Draft No. 117110 30.12.1994 Receipt No. 8437 30.12.1994 5. 1,49,807 Draft No. 427221 9.1.1996 Receipt No. 4395 9.1.1996 6 1,49,807 Draft No. 504906 3.2.1997 Receipt No. 5571 5.2.1997

IT would be seen that the appellant did not deposit the amount towards any of the instalments on the due date except the 1st instalment, in time. Fifth and sixth instalments were not paid at all. Thereafter, the appellant requested the respondent to refund the amount deposited by him which was done after deducting the amount as per Rules from the deposited amount. We find no substance in the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited by him from the respective dates of deposits till realisation. Appellant cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Appellant did not make the payment of the instalments on the due dates and also failed to pay the amount due towards the last two instalments. It was the appellant who was negligent in not making the payment of the instalments on the due date and had also failed to pay the amount due towards the last two instalments. The amount was returned to the appellant at his own request. As the amount was returned on the request made by the appellant, the appellant would not be entitled to any interest especially when the appellant himself was at fault in not depositing, the amount on the due dates of payment.

FOR the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity in the Order passed by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, the First Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.