KANTA RANI KEDIA vs Meerut Development Authority

-THIS revision by the complainant is directed against the order dated 25. 7. 2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U. P. , Lucknow disposing of Appeal Nos. 1749 of 2004 filed by the respondent and 2180 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13. 8. 2004 of a District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 15% p. a. from the dates of deposit, pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and cost of Rs. 5,000 to the petitioner. State Commission modified the Forum''s order reducing the rate of interest from 15% to 9% p. a. and setting aside the award of compensation and cost.

PETITIONER/complainant applied for allotment of a plot in Shatabdi Nagar Scheme and she was allotted plot No. B-145, measuring 180 sq. mtrs. sometime in 1990. She deposited in all amount of Rs. 1,19,140 with the respondent-Authority including interest. Respondent/opposite party through the letter dated 4. 12. 1998 informed the petitioner that it was not possible to hand over possession of said plot No. B-145 and she may take plot in any other developed sector under the same scheme. It was alleged that by the letter 28. 12. 1998, the petitioner gave consent for an alternate plot in a developed sector. This letter was followed by the letters dated 16. 7. 1999 and 31. 7. 1999. Still alternate plot not being given she filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the respondent. In support of the complaint, the petitioner filed her affidavit. Respondent authority filed the affidavit of Smt. Sharda Singh, OSD. We have heard Mr. K. K. Kedia for the petitioner and Mrs. Reena Singh, for the respondent and have been taken through the record.

Controversy between the parties mainly centres around the issue whether the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 4. 12. 1998 communicated her consent for allotment of an alternate plot to the respondent Authority? In para No. 8 of the complaint, the petitioner alleged that on 28. 12. 1998 she sent her consent to the respondent Authority for allotment of plot in other developed sector. In para No. 9, she further alleged that as she did not receive any reply to the letter dated 28. 12. 1998 she sent reminders dated 16. 7. 1999 and 31. 7. 1999. In para Nos. 9 and 10 of the affidavit filed by way of evidence before the District Forum, the petitioner has affirmed the contents of said para Nos. 8 and 9 of the complaint. In para No. 21 of the written version, the respondent stated that the allegations made in para Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are untrue. It was pleaded that in case the petitioner wanted refund of the deposited amount, she should deposit the original receipts of deposits in the office of the Authority and the deposited money will be returned as per rules. Similar is the stand taken in the affidavit filed by way of evidence by Mrs. Sharda Singh on behalf of the Authority. It may be seen that receipt of said letters dated 28. 12. 1998 and two reminders dated 16. 7. 1999 and 31. 7. 1999 which were before the District Forum, have not been specifically denied by the respondent Authority. Thus, there seems to be absolutely no reason to disbelieve the stand taken by the petitioner that she had conveyed her consent for allotment of an alternate plot in a developed sector to the Authority vide letter dated 28. 12. 1998 which was followed by two reminders dated 16. 7. 1999 and 31. 7. 1999. Submission advanced by Mrs. Reena Singh based on the decision in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, II (2007) CPJ 17 (SC)=i (2008) SLT 761= (2007) 6 SCC 711, that as the petitioner was offered alternate site but she did not accept it and, therefore, she is not entitled to any interest or compensation being devoid of any merit is, therefore, repelled.

IN the order under challenge, the State Commission has not given any cogent reason to reduce the rate of interest from 15% to 9% and set aside the award of compensation. Indisputably, petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot in the scheme of 1989-90 floated by the respondent Authority and she was offered alternate plot eight years thereafter but that too was not made available to her. It is a matter of common knowledge that there has been steep rise in the cost of land and construction during the said period. Order of District Forum awarding interest @ 15% p. a. and compensation of Rs. 10,000 was, thus, equitable and ought not to have been disturbed in appeal by the State Commission. Order of State Commission being not legally sustainable deserves to be set aside and that of the District Forum restored as regards rate of interest and award of compensation. Accordingly, while allowing revision aforesaid order dated 25. 7. 2006 of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum dated 13. 8. 2004 restored insofar as it relates to rate of interest and award of compensation of Rs. 10,000. Respondent Authority will pay Rs. 5,000 as cost to the petitioner. R. P. allowed.