MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs M.C.BARDIYA

THIS is an appeal against order passed by the District FORUM, Meerut dated 22.12.1998 in Complaint Case No. 211 / 97. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 12,500/- on 5.12.1989 for getting a plot in Shatabdi Nagar Yojna in Meerut. He was allotted a plot of 250 sq. mts. and the possession was to be delivered in 1992. In compliance of the direction of the appellant, he further deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the rest amount was to be deposited in eight quarterly instalments. On 13.8.1993 a letter was received from the appellant that the value of the plot has been fixed at Rs. 600/- per sq.mt. and the cost of the plot has been fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. As the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,66,131/- he was assured of possession of the plot in 1992. As the possession has not been delivered, the complainant requested for refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest. The opposite party contested the claim and alleged that by not paying the instalments in time, the complainant had violated the terms of the ''Schedule of Payment''. As the development work was not done, therefore, the possession could not be delivered, and if the complainant wants, he can take another plot in another segment which has already been developed.

AFTER hearing the parties, and perusing the evidence on record, the learned District Forum ordered for return of the deposit amount alongwith 15% interest. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has come up in appeal and has filed the present appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the file goes to show that the possession could not be delivered on account of non-development of the plot. If the complainant wants, another plot could be allotted to him in another scheme. This goes to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant because even in the year 1997 the possession of the plot could not be given on account of non-development of the plot, while possession was assured in the year 1992. This goes to show that deficiency in service lies on the part of the appellant in not getting the plot developed within a time bound frame or within a short period thereafter, say within one year. The amount was deposited by the complainant in the year 1989 but till 1997 no plot was allotted to him. Thus the complainant was forced to apply for refund of the deposit. We find no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. It may be made clear that the damages has been awarded by the learned District Forum in the form of interest. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned District Forum dated 22.12.1998 is confirmed. We leave the parties to bear their own cost. Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed. ______________