GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs RAMESH CHANDRA PAL

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 2734 of 2007 - Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ramesh Chandra Pal by which, appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of advertisement of the OP/Petitioner, the Complainant/respondent applied with the requisite amount for the plot. The OP vide its letter dated 5.6.85 allotted a plot no. SL-10 of 468 sq. mt. in Shastri Nagar. On account of dispute arising with the Industrial Development Corporation in relation to the plot in Shastri Nagar, the OP vide its letter dated 25.7.93 offered a plot for allotment measuring 200 sq. mt. in Karpuripuram and again in its place vide letter dated 9.8.93 a plot measuring 250 sq. mt. in Niti Khand, Indra Puram, but the OP had demanded more cost in relation to the Indirapuram plot than the agreed cost that is why the complainant requested for allotment of 350 sq. mt. plot in Indirapuram at the rate prevalent at that time in Shastri Nagar. The complainant had already deposited the payable amount. The OP had till date not delivered the possession of any plot,

whereas apart from plots allotted in Nehru Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Indira Puram other plots were also available and the OP had allotted them to different people. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted the application for allotment by the complainant and the allotment of plot in Shastri Nagar and Indira Puram in favour of the complainant. The OP made a statement that the complainant is liable to deposit the cost at the prevalent rate. Due to the reason that the complainant did not deposit the difference amount and did not give his consent so the possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation. The complainant could not be given possession due to his own fault. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot and deliver possession of plot of 468 sq. mt. either in Shastri Nagar or in Indira Puram at the rate prevailing in 1985 in Shastri Nagar and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of default in making payment of installments by the complainant and inspite of not giving consent for various plots offered by OP, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that as respondent had already deposited more amount than demanded and as OP asked to make payment at higher rate which was contrary to terms of allotment, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

It is admitted case of the parties that complainant applied to OP for allotment of residential plot and OP vide letter dated 5.6.1985 allotted Plot No. SL-10, Shastri Nagar measuring 468 sq. mt. on installments and balance amount was to be paid in 8 installments of Rs.4680/- each. It is also not disputed that complainant paid total Rs.50,451.25 against total cost of plot Rs.46,800/-. It is also not disputed that that complainant committed default in making payment of installments as per schedule and after allotment payment of all installments was to be made upto 4.6.1989, whereas he made payment of only Rs.1091.25 upto that date and Rs.18,000/- were paid on 4.6.1993 and Rs.23,000/- on 17.10.1995.

It is also not disputed that as per allotment letter, on default on payment of second to last installments payment was to be made along with 12% p.a. interest on unpaid amount and it appears that complainant deposited some money towards interest.

First time by letter dated 25.8.1993, OP intimated to the complainant that Plot No. SL-10, Shastri Nagar is not available on spot and complainant can be allotted plot in Karpuripuram Scheme measuring 200 sq. mt. Thus, it becomes clear that for a period of 8 years, no intimation was given by OP to the complainant that plot in Shastri Nagar is not available and this intimation was given only after depositing Rs.18,000/- on 4.6.1993. In response to aforesaid letter, complainant intimated that he may be allotted plot of 350 sq. mt. in Indira Puram on the same rate, but OP vide letter dated 8.9.1993 allotted plot in Indira Puram depicting estimated cost of Rs.3,30,000/-. In response to this letter, complainant vide letter dated 14.9.1993, asked OP to allot plot at the same rate at which rate plot was allotted in Shastri Nagar.

During pendency of this revision petition again OP by letter dated 23.2.2011 asked complainant to give consent for allotment of 300 sq. mt. plot in Madhuban Bau Dham Scheme at present rate and in reply to this letter, complainant asked to allot 468 sq. mt. plot in Shastri Nagar at the rate at which it was allotted originally.

When OP allotted plot to complainant in the year 1985, complainant is entitled to plot at the same rate. It was deficiency on the part of OP to apprise complaint after 8 years of allotment that plot was not available in Shastri Nagar whereas if plot was not available, plot should not have been allotted in Shastri Nagar or if allotted by mistake, immediate intimation should have been given to the complainant for change of plot in other scheme. OP was not entitled to charge present market rate, but was bound to allot plot at the same rate at which it was allotted originally. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that from time to time number of plots in different schemes were offered to the complainant, but he did not give consent, so, there is no deficiency on their part. This argument is devoid of force because in every subsequent request for change of scheme size of plot and rate was changed whereas rate could not have been changed. No doubt, by letter dated 13.8.1993, complainant agreed to take plot of 350 sq. mt. in Indira Puram and in such circumstances, OP should be directed to allot plot measuring 350 sq. mt. instead of 468 sq. mt. originally allotted in Shastri Nagar and to this extent, impugned order is liable to be modified.

No doubt, complainant had committed defaults in making payment of installments, but as per allotment letter, complainant is bound to make payment of delayed installments with 12% p.a. interest for the delayed period, but he cannot be denied to get plot and he cannot be asked to make payment at prevalent market rate. OP is entitled to charge interest on delayed payment of installments and learned District Forum committed error in not directing complainant to pay interest and learned State Commission further committed error in not allowing appeal to this extent and impugned order is liable to be modified to this extent.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, respondent is entitled to plot of 350 sq. mt. either in Shastri Nagar or in Indira Puram at the rate prevailing in the year 1985 subject to payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on delayed payment of installments and to this extent, revision petition is to be allowed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 2734 of 2007 - Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ramesh Chandra Pal and order of District Forum dated 21.11.2007 in Case No. 17/1997 - Ramesh Chand Pal Vs. Joint Secretary (Shasatri Nagar), Ghaziabad & Ors. is partly modified and OP is directed to allot plot of 350 sq. mt. instead of 468 sq. mt. in Shastri Nagar or Indira Puram at the rate on which original allotment was made subject to payment of interest on delayed payment of installments as per original allotment letter and other directions regarding payment of compensation and litigation cost by District forum is affirmed. Parties to bear their costs.