MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Shakuntala Devi

THIS is an appeal which has been filed by Meerut Development Authority against the order and judgment dated 15.9.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case No. 131 of 1995. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under.

THE appellant, Meerut Development Authority, in the year 1986 floated a residential scheme known as "Rakshpuram Avaziya Yojna. Encouraged by the scheme, the complainant, respondent in this appeal, Shakuntala Devi applied for a residential plot on 25.2.1986 and deposited registration amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 23.7.1988, the appellant had informed that she has been allotted plot No. P-3/86 and was asked to deposit Rs. 16,000/-. THE estimated cost of the plot measuring 200 sq. ft. was Rs. 70,000/-. On 16.8.1988 this amount of Rs. 16,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the appellant. As per letter of the appellant dated 3.9.1991 the remaining amount of Rs. 44,000/- towards the cost of the plot was to be deposited in eight instalments. Accordingly the complainant deposited the amount as desired by the appellant. In addition the complainant deposited Rs. 6,922/- as lease money and Rs. 10,000/- as enhanced cost of the plot. It is noteworthy that the Meerut Development Authority, the appellant, had informed the complainant on 6.9.1993 that the cost of the plot had increased by Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly the complainant deposited that amount also in addition to the lease money. Thus the total amount deposited by the complainant comes to Rs. 88,422/-. This amount was deposited from 25.2.1986 to 18.9.1993. Inspite of this the complainant was not given possession of the plot in question nor the plot was ever demarcated, the colony has not been developed, water, electricity and sewage facilities were not provided over the area in question. When the appellant was approached by the complainant, no satisfactory answer was given. When the complainant on 11.1.1995 wanted the money deposited by her to be returned to her with 2% interest per month, no heed was paid to her request. She, therefore, lodged a complaint before the District Forum praying that the amount deposited by her should be returned alongwith interest. THE cost of proceedings has also been claimed. The case of the appellant, Meerut Development Authority, opposite party in the District Forum, was that the cost of the plot was an estimated one and later on it was enhanced by Rs. 10,000/-. The development work was discontinued because a dispute had occurred between the appellant and Cooperative Housing Society over the plot in question. The plot, therefore, became disputed as a result of litigation between appellant and the Cooperative Housing Society with the result that an alternative plot No. 1/52 was offered to the complainant which was fully developed, and the complainant was free to take previous allotted plot.

The District Forum, after hearing both the parties, ordered that the amount deposited by the complainant be refunded to her with 18% per annum interest. Cost of Rs. 500/- was also awarded to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the Meerut Development Authority has come in appeal. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant admitted that an amount of Rs. 88,422/- was deposited by the complainant from time to time for allotment of the plot and plot No. 3/86 was allotted to her. The physical possession of the plot could not be given due to dispute created by Basant Vihar Cooperative Society on the area on which the plot was allotted to the respondent and the Society filed a Court case. In the circumstances the allotted plot No. 1/52 is in the same scheme in the fully developed area. The respondent did not take possession of the aforesaid plot and filed the complaint in the District Consumer Forum asking for refund of the entire amount deposited by her. The intention of the Meerut Development Authority was to give physical possession in time but the delay occurred because of litigation and, therefore, an alternative plot was given. We have gone through the evidence on record. We have also heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. V.S. Bisaria and the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. S.K. Sinha. There is dispute between the parties as far the amount deposited by the complainant is concerned. It has been admitted by the Meerut Development Authority that an amount of Rs. 88,422/- was deposited by the complainant and plot No. 3/86 was allotted to her. Since the plot No. 3/86 could not be delivered by the appellant/respondent because of litigation, another plot No. 1/52 was allotted to her. The case of the respondent is that the new plot No. 1/52 was allotted to her against her wishes. She wanted possession of plot No. 7/86 which was not given to her by the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that since an alternative plot had been allotted to the respondent and in the event of not taking over possession of that plot, the Development Authority was free to make deductions and the Development Authority could only return the amount deposited. As per the rules of the Authority which lays down that certain deductions have to be made and the amount has to be deposited after deductions. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that interest on amount deposited would be paid from the date of application for refund and not from the date of deposit. We are not inclined to agree with this view. There was clear deficiency of service on the part of the appellant who accepted the deposits from 1986 to 1993 and thereafter for many years did not deliver possession. No proof that the plot in question was in dispute has been filed before the District Forum or before this Commission. Moreover, the complainant could not have been allotted a new plot against her wishes.

OUR attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellant towards the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case, Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Sanchar Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad, in Civil Appeal Nos. 7199 and 7439 of 1995 decided on 10.5.1996, II (1996) CPJ 15 (SC) to 18. Since no proof has been filed by the appellant to the fact that there was a dispute between the Cooperative Housing Society and the appellant, we cannot come to the conclusion that the Meerut Development Authority is not at fault. It is not at all clear that there was some dispute because of the land acquisition proceedings. In the circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for appellant have to be jettisoned and it is a clear case in which the Development Authority has retained the money deposited by the complainant without delivering any service in return for many years. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the order and judgment dated 15.9.1997 of the District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 131/1995 is confirmed. The interim orders passed by this Commission on 19.1.1998 and 12.4.1999 are vacated. The appellant will also pay to the complainant Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings in this appeal Let copy of this order be made available as per rules. Appeal dismissed with costs.