SANTOSH KUMAR BAJPAI vs Registration U.P. Housing And Development Council

THIS revision petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 05.01.2010 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ( '' the State Commission '', for short) in Appeal No. 1169 of 2002 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, who is also the complainant in this case. By its impugned order, the State Commission while dismissing the appeal had upheld the order dated 05.02.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur City in Complaint Case No.183 1997 by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit/application for condoning the delay of 1043 days in filing this revision petition.

WE have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and pleaded his case himself and learned Shri Rajiv Yadav, Advocate appearing for the respondents. As regards the delay, the petitioner has submitted that he is a poor person who could not afford to engage a counsel to pursue his appeal before the State Commission and as such he was pursuing it before the State Commission himself. However, in between because of the death of his wife and also because of his poverty he could not keep a track of his appeal pending before the State Commission which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. He came to know about it after number of visits to the State Commission Office which eventually resulted in the delay of more than three years. After coming to know of the dismissal of his appeal with the help of some Advocate on 07.02.2013, he immediately took action to file the revision petition with this Commission on 11.02.2013 and in the process the delay in question has taken place which, according to him, was neither deliberate nor intentional but because of his poverty, ignorance and personal difficulties in which he was placed during the period.

THE explanation given by the petitioner is vague and general without any documents to support. He has not indicated as to when his wife died and on which dates he visited the State Commission before and after the death of his wife to enquire about the status of his appeal. In view of this, we do not accept the explanation given by the petitioner in support of the delay and hence, the same cannot be regarded as ''Sufficient Cause '' for condoning the inordinate delay of 1043 days in filing this revision petition. This revision petition, therefore, is liable for dismissal on this ground alone. However, since the petitioner was not represented before the State Commission at the time of disposal of his appeal, we have considered his case on merits as well.

BRIEFLY stated, the factual matrix of this case are that the petitioner filed an application for allotment of a house with the respondents in the year 1979 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.50/ -. At that time, the estimated price of house was indicated as Rs.7500/ -. After registration of his application and a gap of 17 years, the respondents offered him House No.1979 under the Hanspuram Kanpur Residential Scheme for which the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/ - with UCO Bank, Kanpur on 26.08.1996. Later, the respondents asked for payment of enhanced price of Rs.84,704/ - vide letter dated 31.10.1996. The petitioner, however, insisted on payment of the original price of Rs.7,500/ - as determined in the year 1979 but his request was not accepted by the respondents. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was opposed by the respondents and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence before it, the District Forum rejected the request of the petitioner for allotment of the house at the initial rate of 1979 but partly allowed the complaint by directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.2,050/ - to the petitioner along with interest @ 12% within a period of two months in case the petitioner was not willing to accept the house at the enhanced rate of the 1996 as per the letter of the respondents. Aggrieved of this order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order.

WE may note that even though, the parties were not present before the State Commission at the time of disposal of the appeal, the State Commission has considered the matter on merits and recorded reasons in its order. While dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has observed thus: ''''It is a long drawn settled view that the development authority has a right to escalate the price of a plot or a house provided there is justification for it. In the case in hand the price of the small houses for economically poor section of the public was initially settled to be as Rs.7,500/ - in the year 1979 but fixation of this price was not determined for all times to come. With the passage of time the cost of the building material, land and properties escalated and ten fold escalation in the period of 17 years i.e. from the time the scheme was floated in the year 1979 and the Parishad ''s offer for allotment made to the complainant vide its letter dated 26.08.1996, was justifiable and sustainable. By no stretch of reasoning the demand of the Parishad for the escalated price of the house can be said to be unjust, unreasonable or untenable. The Parishad allotted its houses for the economical weaker section of the society at the same price of Rs.84,704/ - in the year 1996 and there is no exception to the determination of the said price. The complainant could not bring on record a single instance whereby a house built by the Parishad for members of the economical poor section could have been allotted at a lower price than quoted above in the latter part of the year 1996 or subsequent thereto. We are therefore of the decisive opinion that the demand of the escalated price was just and reasonable and since the complainant himself committed a default by not adhering there to he is not entitled to get any advantage of his own default. His complaint has been rightly dismissed. No interference is required. ''''

THE main contention of the petitioner on merits is that he had given the application for the house in question in 1979 and deposited an amount of Rs.50/ - for the purpose. He submitted that at that time the price indicated was Rs.7500/ -. Later on, when he received an offer of allotment of the house in question, he deposited a further amount of Rs.2,000/ - in the year 1996. He submitted that in these circumstances, it was inappropriate and not justified on the part of the respondent authority to increase the price of the house in question to Rs.84,704/ - in the year 1996 because they were going against their own commitment for which he had submitted the application. It was his grievance that the District Forum and the State Commission both failed to appreciate this aspect while rejecting his request for directing the respondents to accept the initial price of Rs.7500/ - rather than insisting on the enhanced price. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order is appropriate in the given facts and circumstances and there was no reason why it should be interfered with. We have considered the submission of the petitioner but do not find any merit in it. In the given circumstances, the view taken by the State Commission is fair and just and we do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned order while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to costs.