UMA SINGH vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

COMPLAINANT petitioner herein, has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 5.2.2007 passed in Appeal No. 1229/98 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission'') by which the State Commission reversing the order of the District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

IN 1988, Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short, ''the GDA'') Respondent herein advertised in various national dailies and issued brochure in respect of its various housing schemes for allotment of flats on ground floor (in short, ''GF'') and on upper floors (in short ''UF'') prescribing different prices for GF and UF flats. On 30.7.1988, Petitioner applied for a GF flat in Scheme No. 525. On payment of registration amount of Rs. 18,000, Respondent on 22.10.1988 vide letter dated 22347/525-13-C/0086/00082/CC/86 reserved a flat for the Petitioner indicating that the flat reserved for her is on ground floor. This is clear from the details recorded in the Reservation letter issued which read as under: Sl. No. Column No. in the reservation letter Description 1 3 Property category, HIG (T/s) GF 2 4 Estimated cost Rs. 1,78,000 for GF flat 3 6 Payment Schedule for GF Flat

PETITIONER paid full- amount of Rs. 1,78,000 to the Respondent towards cost of GF flat. On 10.1.1991, GDA offered a flat to the Petitioner on the first floor along with scooter garage. Since the Petitioner had applied for GF flat and not for first floor with scooter garage, she wrote several letters to the Respondent to allot her a GF flat any where in the scheme of GDA and to withdraw the allotment of scooter garage which was a forced allotment. Respondent did not allot a flat on the ground floor, feeling harassed, the Petitioner made a request to the Respondent for refund of the amount deposited by her. i.e. Rs. 1,78,000 along with interest thereon. On 8.7.1993, Respondent sent a cheque for Rs. 1,73,500 to the Petitioner stating that "You Are Informed That Your Name Is Not Appearing In The Successful Applicants. Therefore, Balance Amount, Rs. 1,73,500 Is Being Returned To You Vide Chque No. 665607 Dated 8.7.1993."

PETITIONER being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that the Respondent was deficient in service by (i) not allotting a GF flat to her, (ii) not withdrawing the forced, irrational, illegal and illogical allotment of the scooter garage, and (iii) making illegal deduction from the amount of Rs. 1,78,000 deposited by her on the flimsy ground that she was not amongst successful applicants.

DISTRICT Forum vide its order dated 20.4.1998 allowed the complaint in the following terms: "Accepting the complaint of the complainant the opposite party is directed that within two months from the date of decision, the deducted amount of the complainant be paid and also an interest @ 15% per annum be paid on the total amount deposited by the complainant w.e.f. the date of amount deposited till the date of refund thereof, to the complainant and also Rs. 5,00 as compensations for mental torture and cost of litigation be paid to the complainant.

(English Translation)

RESPONDENT being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. During pendency of appeal, Petitioner filed execution application before the District Forum. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum by observing that the deduction was lawful as the Complainant herself did not take the possession of the flat allotted to her and there was no mention in the letter dated 22.10.1988 issued by the GDA regarding the allotment of GF flat.

FROM the narration of the facts, it is evidence that the Petitioner was serious about taking the GF floor and the entire consideration was paid by her as per the following schedule given in the Reservation letter: Sl. Instalment Due date of Due No. Description payment amount 1. Reservation amount 30.11.88 18,000 2. Instalment No. 1 31.3.89 35,500 3. Instalment No. 2 30.9.89 35,500 4. Instalment No. 3 31.3.90 35,500 5. Instalment No. 4 30.9.90 35,500

IN the reservation letter, it was specifically mentioned that the Petitioner had applied for a GF flat. The State Commission has committed factual error in recording the finding that in Reservation Letter dated 22.10.1988 there was no mention about the allotment of GF flat to the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner had applied for GF flat she did not take possession of the flat allotted to her on the first floor. Moreover, the Petitioner had not applied for scooter garage and the Respondent could not force her to take the possession of the same. The State Commission ignored the fact that GDA allotted a flat on the first floor instead of ground floor which was applied for and reserved for the Petitioner. Respondent has also allotted a scooter garage which was totally unjustified and uncalled for because the Petitioner had not applied for the same. Respondent deducted 25% of the registration amount on an untenable ground that the name of the Petitioner did not appear in the list of successful applicants for allotment of flat. Respondent had issued the Reservation Letter on 22.10.1988 reserving a GF flat as per the application made by the Petitioner The plea taken by the Respondent that the Petitioner was unsuccessful applicant in the draw of lots is belied by the allotment letter dated 10.1.1991 by which the Petitioner was asked to send photo copies of receipts showing payment of the instalments failing which it would be presumed that she had not deposited the amount and the allotment made in her favour would be cancel. The letter dated 10.1.1991 reads as under: "(Hindi matter omitted)"

THIS letter shows that the allotment had been made by the Respondent and the Petitioner was asked to file proof of having paid the installments as per schedule. Petitioner applied for cancellation of the flat and refund of the amount in the year 1993 as she was not allotted the flat as per her request and was being forced to buy the flat on first floor with scooter garage against her wish on the ground that her name did not appear in the list of successful applicants. As the Respondent has taken inconsistent factual incorrect and false stand, the Respondent was deprived of her allotment on totally untenable grounds. The order passed by the State Commission is contrary to the facts on record and the same is set aside.

SINCE the Petitioner herself has asked for refund of deposited amount she cannot be allotted a flat at this stage but she can certainly be compensated by directing the Respondent to pay interest from the respective date of deposits till its refund. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent to pay the deducted amount of Rs. 4,500 and interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount from the respective date of deposits of instalments- till payment. The Respondent is directed to pay the amount to the Petitioner within 60 days failing which the Petitioner would be at liberty either to get the execution application filed earlier revived or file a fresh application under Sections 25 and 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking execution of the order. The Revision Petition is disposed of above. Revision Petition disposed of.