RAMA DEVI vs Lucknow Development Authority

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-This appeal arises out of the Order dated 1.9.2006 in Complaint Case No. C/98/SC/1997 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'' for short) whereby the State Commission partly allowed the complaint.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the First Appeal are as under: As per allegations made in the complaint, appellant/complainant applied for a plot in Priyadarshani Scheme and was given registration number 00037268. It is stated that in the draw of lots on 20.7.1989, appellant was allotted plot No. A-1/6 measuring 14 x 28 square meter in the said Scheme. That appellant paid Rs. 7,000 to the respondent as advance money and further paid Rs. 1,59,400 as demanded by the respondent as cost of the plot which was payable in 8 quarterly instalments of Rs. 21,675 each on Hire Purchase. Last instalment was paid on 10.7.1991. Appellant had also paid interest for late payment as per demand raised by the appellant. In spite of making the full payment towards the cost of plot, the respondent neither got the plot registered in the name of the appellant nor handed over the possession of the same to her. That the respondent did not give any reply to her letter dated 26.7.1997. Thereafter, appellant sent a Legal Notice to the respondent for handing over possession of the plot and for payment of interest @ 16% p.a. on the deposited amount from 27.4.1991 till the possession was delivered.

AS no reply was received, appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission which was partly allowed and the respondent was directed to either hand over the possession of the allotted plot within 2 months or to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 12%.

AGAINST the Order passed by the State Commission, Rama Devi filed First Appeal No. 338 of 1999 and the Lucknow Development Authority filed First Appeal No. 1 of 2000. In the Appeal filed by Rama Devi, she prayed for handing over of the possession of the plot whereas the Lucknow Development Authority, in the Appeal, had taken the stand that it had no notice regarding the filing of the complaint and that the aforesaid Order was passed by the State Commission behind its back ex parte. This Commission, by an agreed Order, set aside the Order passed by the State Commission and remitted the case to the State Commission for a fresh decision on merits in the light of the observations made in the Order. Rama Devi/complainant, who had received the sum of Rs. 12,54,225 in execution of the Order of the State Commission, was directed to redeposit the same along with interest @ 12% from the date of receipt of the money. Parties were directed to appear before the State Commission on (colly) September, 2005. The operative part of the Order passed by this Commission reads as under: "Counsel for both the parties agree that case be remanded to the State Commission for complaint being decided on merit after allowing Lucknow Development Authority to file written version and evidence. On inquiry, Mr. Sayed states that Lucknow Development Authority is charging interest @ 12%. Since said amount of Rs. 12,54,225 was realized in execution proceedings, Mrs. Rama Devi cannot evade payment of interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of that money. In view of said concession, while allowing appeals the aforesaid order dated 27.5.1999 is set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for complaint being decided afresh on merits in the light of the observations made above."

THE State Commission, while deciding the matter afresh, allowed the Complaint and gave the following directions for compliance by the parties concerned within 2 months from date of the Order: "Q.1. Since L.D.A. is asked to pay 12% interest on Rs. 1,76,400 with effect from 10.7.1991 to 31.8.2006, a sum of Rs. 4,96,936 may be adjustable. Q.2. A sum of Rs. 12,54,225 and interest till 31.8.2006 @ 12% on the said amount comes to Rs. 22,45,063 from which the aforesaid figure of Rs. 4,96,936 has to be reduced which comes to Rs. 17,48,127. Q.3. Smt. Rama Devi will deposit Rs. 17,48,127 within two months in the treasury of L.D.A. Q.4. The parties will bear their costs throughout."

THE State Commission was constrained to pass this Order as Rama Devi, in spite of the directions given by the State Commission, did not deposit the sum of Rs. 12,54,225 along with interest from the date she received the amount till the decision of Appeal in pursuance to the Order of remand. Relief claimed by the appellant for allotment of plot was not accepted as the appellant failed to redeposit the sum of Rs. 12,54,225 along with interest.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, appellant filed this First Appeal.

COUNSEL appearing for the appellant has stated before us that the sum of Rs. 12,54,225 along with interest @ 12% was deposited by the appellant on 25.1.2007 during the pendency of the present First Appeal. That the appellant is interested in getting a plot, instead of money refund which shows the complainant''s bona fide to keep/get the plot. We do not find any substance in the submission made. Deposit of the sum of Rs. 12,54,225 along with interest in terms of the directions issued by this Commission was in the nature of a condition precedent. As the appellant had failed to deposit the amount in terms of the Order of remand, till the appeal was decided, the plot could not be ordered to be given to her. Appellant was not entitled to get the plot, and, keep the money as well. As of today, much water has flown under the bridge. Appellant was shown indulgence by this Commission, while remanding the case. Repeated indulgence cannot be shown. She has missed the bus. The Order of the State Commission cannot be faulted with. The State Commission has rightly declined the plea of the appellant seeking the allotment of_plot. The directions issued by the State Commission are just and appropriate in the given circumstances and we find no infirmity in the same. Dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.