AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.2.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 368 of 1997. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for a Middle Income Group house in Shatabdi Nagar Scheme and deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 28.11.1989. The complainant was allotted a house in the Scheme in Phase - II, Sector ''B'' bearing House No 3/44 by letter dated 30.1.1990. The area of the house was 112 sq. metres. The estimated cost of the house was Rs. 1,25,000/-. The complainant was directed by Meerut Development Authority to deposit Rs. 35,000/- which he has deposited on 7.3.1990. Thereafter the complainant had received a letter dated 24.12.1993 of MDA intimating that now he has been allotted House No. A/80-4B. It was also indicated in the said letter that due to some reasons construction work could not be completed of House No. 3/44. The complainant went several times to MDA for possession of the house but possession was never given and he was told that the possession of the house will be given upto October, 1994. The opposite party through its letter dated 11.1.1995 informed the complainant that the cost of the house has been increased to Rs. 3,01,291/-. The complainant informed MDA that he is not prepared to take house on high rate and money deposited by him be returned to him. The complainant filed the complaint and alleged that the house was changed without his consent and further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 18% p.a.
THE opposite party in its written version alleged that the cost of House No. 3/44 was 1,85,000/- and not Rs. 1,25,000/-. MDA had right to change the allotment of the construction work of House No. 3/44 was not possible. As such the house was changed. THE parties have led their evidence. The District Consumer Forum after considering the facts of the case has directed MDA to refund the entire amount along with 15% p.a. interest within a period of one month.
Aggrieved against the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut, the opposite party has come in appeal.
WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant without issuing notice to the other party, because the fate of the judgment would have been same. Learned Counsel has argued that the house was changed with the consent of the complainant. This argument is based on the letter dated 29.6.1994 (Annexure-4) to the memo of appeal written by the complainant to the Joint Secretary, MDA. A perusal of this letter goes to show that the cost of the house has been increased and the complainant was persistently directed to comply various conditions as per letter enclosed. He has asked MDA to look into the matter and save him from serious mental constraints. Complainant has also stated in this letter that as per memo issued to him he has to fulfil the requirement upto 26.3.1994 failing which action will be taken against him without any further notice. The complainant further stated that he would not like to pay any more interest to his employers on loan on behalf of delay from MDA. This letter does not indicate that complainant has given consent for the change of house. This letter is conditional letter which was sent in reply to the letter of MDA. A perusal of the complaint case goes to show that the complainant has alleged that MDA is not in a position to deliver the possession of original house. Therefore, amount deposited by him be returned. The District Consumer Forum has, therefore, taken correct view and rightly directed MDA to return the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest. There is no force in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 26.2.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut are confirmed. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.