MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Saroj Bala

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.8.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 653/ 1998.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied in Shatabdi Nagar Scheme for a plot in LIG category and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 13.1.1993. THE opposite party allotted plot No.399 EWS measuring 30 sq. mts. in Ved Vyaspuri. THE cost of the plot was disclosed to be Rs. 21,600/- and the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 23,897/- till 30.3.1997. Inspite of several attempts being made by the complainant, the opposite party has not delivered possession till 1998, inspite of the efforts of the complainant. THEreafter the complainant was informed by the opposite party that the development work could not be done and hence the possession could not be delivered. It was further mentioned in the letter that if the complainant wants another plot in another scheme at an enhanced cost, then she can apply for the same but the complainant was not willing to have plot in another scheme. THE complainant therefore applied for refund of the entire amount deposited alongwith 24% per annum interest and Rs. 20,000/- as damages. The opposite party has argued that the complainant had not booked the house for E.W.S. plot but for LIG scheme because of sum of Rs. 3,000/- which was deposited was meant for LIG plot. As the agriculturists started raising disputes, hence the development work could not be completed in time. Therefore the possession could also not be delivered. Opposite party has further alleged that the complainant could get a house in another developed scheme if she wants. Lastly it is alleged that no application for refund was moved before the Development Authority.

Learned District Forum, after considering the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and hence it allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the entire deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum as also cost of Rs. 500/-.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage and we do not find any good ground to admit the appeal. We therefore propose to decide the appeal at the admission stage.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant has wrongly applied in a scheme but we are not concerned under which scheme the complainant had applied because the controversy before us for the present is whether there was any deficiency on the part of the appellant in not delivering the possession of the plot in time. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the possession could not be delivered on account of the fact that the agriculturists did not permit the development work to be completed and raised certain disputes. An allottee is not concerned with the internal matters of the Development Authority. It was between the Development Authority and the farmers and the complainant is not concerned with the same. If the land could not have been taken possession of by the Development Authority, then the Development Authority could not have sold the plots to anybody till the possession of the land was acquired by the Development Authority. The complainant never knew that the Development Authority is still to take possession of the property in dispute and the Development Authority had not intimated that the possession will be delayed on account of the fact that the possession of the land acquired has not been delivered to the Development Authority. Thus in view of the fact that the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant even after a period of five years, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Development Authority and it cannot escape its liability in refunding the amount and paying interest on that amount as it has retained this money for its own use for such a long time without giving any service to the complainant. Thus we find that there was deficiency on the part of the Development Authority and the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in ordering the opposite party to refund the amount deposited alongwith interest and cost. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed summarily. There will be no order as to the cost. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.