SATPAL RAMPRAKASH vs Raipur Development Authority

BOTH these appeals are directed against the order dated 10.10.2001 in Complaint Case Nos. 323/2001 and 324/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as District Forum for short). Since both these appeals involve common questions they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.

THE complainant/appellant of both the complaints admittedly registered and booked a plot in Scheme No. 033 proposed to be launched by the opposite party/respondent-Raipur Development Authority. THE said plots were booked in the year 1978. THE complainant deposited Rs. 2,000/- as registration fee with the respondent. Respondent assured the appellant from time to time that plots would be allotted to them, yet the respondent did not keep up his promise. THE appellant, therefore, served notices to the opposite party/respondent which was not responded by it. THE complainants prayed that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- deposited by them with interest be refunded to them. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/respondent. It was averred that the complainants/appellants were not ''consumers'' as they did not deposit the amount of Rs. 2,000/- in respect of any specific plot. It was also averred that for the above reason, the complaints were not entertainable by the District Forum.

The learned District Forum held that the complaint was time barred. The complainants were not consumers and there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainants/appellants submitted that the respondent did not raise the objection regarding limitation. It was also submitted that as the respondent never refused to allot the plots; the complaint was not time barred. It was also submitted that since the complainants had deposited the amount in response to the respondent''s assurance that after their registration, the plot, would be allotted to them and since the plots were never so allotted, hence the appellants were the consumers of the respondent - Raipur Development Authority, and that they were entitled to get the refund of the amount deposited by them with interest thereon. It is noticed that the learned District Forum held that the complaints were time barred. However, from the reply of the respondent filed in the District Forum it does not appear that the opposite party/respondent raised any objection in that regard. Moreover, the respondent also did not specifically controvert the averment of the complainants/appellants that they were constantly approaching the respondent for allotment of plots but despite assurance, the plots were never allotted to them. It is also noticed that the respondent never sent any letter intimating the complainants, its inability to allot the plots.

IT is , therefore, clear that the appellants booked the plot with the respondent and had deposited earnest money of Rs. 2,000/-. However, the respondent had neither allotted the plots to the appellants nor cared to inform the appellants regarding its inability to allot the plots. The amount was deposited long back in the year 1978. The said amount has been retained by the respondent without fulfilling its promise of allotment of plots. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellants were consumers of the respondent - Raipur Development Authority and that their complaint was not time barred. IT would, therefore, appear that the respondent had committed deficiency in service by retaining the amount as above without allotment of plots for an unduly long period of about 25 years. In the above context, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Commission in Gwalior Development Authority v. Manju Nayak & Ors., 1999 CCJ 851, relied upon by the appellants'' learned Counsel may be referred to. Therefore, it is clear that the learned District Forum erred in holding otherwise and in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is clearly, grossly erroneous and deserves to be set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the respondent shall refund the amount of Rs. 2,000/- deposited with the respondent in Complaint Case No. 323/2001 on 12.1.1977 and in Complaint Case No. 324/2001 on 17.3.1978 to complainants/appellants with interest @ 10% per annum from those dates till repayment, as also costs of this litigation throughout which is quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. The amount as above shall be paid/deposited by the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the interest shall be payable @ 15% per annum from the date of default. Appeal allowed.