MARUDHAR HANDICRAFTS vs RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT And INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.

THIS complaint has been filed by M/s. Marudhar Handicrafts against the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. wherein the complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to deliver possession of plot No. G-223 measuring 1000 sq. mts. or in the alternative to allot any other plot. It has further been prayed that in case the opposite party are not in a position to deliver possession of the said plot or an alternative plot, it may be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs to the complainant @ Rs. 900/- per sq. meters.

COMPLAINANT has alleged that it is an exporter of Sanganeri print cloth. In order to increase his business, the complainant had applied for plot No. 223 in Sanganer Industrial Scheme to the opposite party. In connection with the said plot the complainant from time to time, advanced various amounts to the opposite parties as detailed at the foot of para 2 of the complaint. After the above amount of Rs. 2,03,316/- had been paid by the complainant to the opposite party the later executed a lease deed dated 4.6.1993 in favour of the complainant and the same was got registered. The complainant had to bear an amount of Rs. 20,410/- as stamp duty and Rs. 743/- as registration charges. It has been alleged that by the letter of the opposite party dated 16.5.1992 the complainant was required to obtain possession of the above plot on 21.5.1992. The complainant went on the spot for the purpose but it was found that the some agriculturists had put wire fencing around the plot and he used to sow crop on this land. The complainant then went to the office of the opposite party and met various officials and requested them to deliver possession of the plot. However, the possession of the plot had not been delivered and, therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint. The opposite party in its version has admitted that the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,03,316/- with respect to the plot. However, it has been pleaded that one Gyarsi has filed a Writ Petition No. 1984/93 and it was, therefore, not within its control. In para 4 the opposite party has said that the possession of the plot has been delivered to the complainant on 21.5.1992. As the matter of fact, a confused reply has been filed by the opposite party. Certain preliminary objections have also been raised wherein the opposite party has irrelevantly referred to some decisions of the National Commission which have no application to the facts of the present case. It has also been pleaded that as the complainant wanted the plot for commercial purposes the complaint was not maintainable.

As already observed above, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,03,316/- with the opposite party for allotting to him plot No. 223 situated in Sanganer Industrial Scheme. The lease deed of the plot was also executed and got registered in favour of the complainant on 4.6.1993. However, possession of the plot was not delivered by the opposite party to the complainant for the reason that some agriculturist named Gyarsi has filed a writ petition bearing No. 1984/93 in the Rajasthan High Court. It is clear from the facts that the opposite party despite having received the consideration and despite having executed the lease deed in favour of the complainant, was not in a position to deliver possession of the plot. If it was not within the control of the opposite party to deliver possession of the plot, it was bound to return the amount which it had received from the complainant as consideration for the plot. The decision of the National Commission in First Appeal No. 51/90 (Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corp. v. M/s. Premier Paints) decided on 11.10.1990=II (1991) CPJ 599 (NC) has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the District Forum had passed an order directing that the lease deed in respect of the I and allotted in favour of M/s. Premier Paints which was in the possession of the RIICO be sent to the Raj. Financial Corp. to enable to later to grant a further loan, if possible. The National Commission held that such relief cannot be granted by a Consumer Forum. In the present case, there is no such prayer on behalf of the complainant. The learned Counsel for the opposite party also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. PHD Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=Civil Appeal No. 4193/95 decided on 4.4.95. This decision has also no application whatsoever to the facts of the case. The complainant''s case is not for any defective goods, but for deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party. We wonder why a such misplaced decisions are referred to by the opposite party. In para 5(d)(2) of the complainant has expressly mentioned deficiency in service.

AS the opposite party is not in a position to deliver possession of the allotted plot to the complainant, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,03,316/- deposited by him with the opposite party alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from 4.6.1993 till its payment. The complainant has further to bear the stamp duty of Rs. 20,410/- and registration fees of Rs. 743/-. He was also inconvenience and had to approach to opposite party for delivering possession of the plot. Keeping in view the fact that the possession of the plot was not delivered despite the complainant having deposited the money and that he had to bear registration charges and stamp duty, we award a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. We, therefore, direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,03,316/- with interest @ 15% p.a. with effect from 4.6.1993 till payment. We further direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant will further get Rs. 5,000/- as costs of this complaint. The payment will be made within two months. Complaint allowed with costs.