UP State Industrial vs Reliable Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

THE U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSIDC), Petitioner has filed the present revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No.2531 of 2003. Reliable Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. who was the original complainant before the District Forum, is the Respondent in this case.

THE facts of the case are that Respondent was allotted an industrial plot bearing No.149 in Surajpur Industrial Area under the Industrial Scheme of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-. Respondent paid this amount on 22.10.1992 and the plot was thereafter allotted. THE possession of the plot was taken over by the Respondent on 10.11.1994 with the purpose of establishing an industrial unit and commencing production thereafter. To this end, Respondent had deposited required charges for SSI registration. However, due to lack of skilled labour for her pharmaceutical unit as well as poor development of the area, Respondent could not shift her business from Delhi and she informed the Petitioner of these genuine difficulties. Petitioner, however, arbitrarily cancelled allotment of the plot on 17.09.1999 and the Respondent"s application for restoration and later for allocation of a fresh plot was rejected. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner be directed to restore the plot allotted to her to enable her to establish industrial unit. The Petitioner on the other hand denied the above allegations and stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 29.10.1994, only 12 months" time was given to allottees to complete construction and start production on their respective plots. Respondent, however, failed to do so on some flimsy pretext or the other. She was issued several notices in this connection and her allotment was cancelled after a period of 7 years. The plot could not be restored to her because she asked for restoration after one year of the cancellation when the restoration policy was no longer an available option. She was, however, offered a fresh plot at higher rates (at Rs.750/- per sq.mtr.) to which she also did not respond within the stipulated period. The Petitioner, therefore, acted strictly in accordance with its Rules and Regulations and there was thus no deficiency in service on their part. .

The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by observing as follows: "On consideration of the entire facts, it is clear that due to certain circumstances, the complainant could not undertake the construction work on the said plot, but on receiving the information for the cancellation of the same, a prayer for the restoration of the said plot was made on her behalf which shows that the complainant was serious with respect to the said plot. It is also clear at the time when the complainant had prayed for the restoration of the said plot the restoration policy was in force. But meanwhile the opposite party had asked the complainant to complete certain formalities. In between, the rules and regulations with respect to restoration of the plots by the opposite party corporation had changed. It is also undisputed that the plot in question had now been allotted to some other applicant and as such the same cannot be restored. The rules and regulations for the restoration of the plot were changed on 29.09.2000 by which time the application for the restoration of the said plot was pending before the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party is liable for the deficiency in service."

THE District Forum directed the Petitioner to allot within 30 days from the date of order a plot of 600 sq.mts. at a similar location, size and area at the rate prevalent in September, 2000 to the Respondent. It further directed that the amount already deposited earlier for the said plot be adjusted in the premium for the new plot allotted and the difference of the price of the old plot and new one should also be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner and if the Respondent does not want a new plot in lieu of the old plot, then Petitioner should return to the Respondent the amount already deposited by the Respondent after deducting 10% of the same as penalty with 12% interest from the date of cancellation of the plot till the date of payment. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum with the amendment that the Respondent would be entitled to interest @ 6% on the amount deposited earlier for the said plot w.e.f. 22.10.1992 till the date of realization.

HENCE the present revision petition. Learned counsel for both parties were present. Counsel for Petitioner contended that the learned fora below erred in not appreciating the fact that as per the Agreement as well as Rules and Regulations of the Petitioner/Corporation, Respondent was required to complete the construction on the allotted plot within a stipulated period of 12 months which she failed to do on unconvincing and flimsy grounds. She was given several opportunities to complete the same through written notices and it was after a period of 7 years that the Petitioner had no option but to cancel the allotment. The plot also could not be restored to her because of change in policy and she did not apply for re-allotment along with the required documents although asked to do so in writing within the stipulated period. Counsel for Petitioner further contended that the Respondent is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since she was engaged in commercial activities. Counsel for Respondent reiterated that the Respondent could not adhere to the stipulated period for construction because of very genuine reasons as spelt out in her complaint before the District Forum and earlier as submitted before the Petitioner. Petitioner, however, despite these genuine problems and her having paid the entire money, cancelled the allotment without even informing her of the same. When she came to know about the cancellation of her plot during a her visit to the office of the Petitioner, she immediately approached the Petitioner for restoration and also subsequently offered to be considered for fresh allotment on higher rates for which she sought details vide her letter dated 17.08.2001. Petitioner, however, did not consider these requests including for allotment of a fresh plot. Counsel for Respondent also submitted that Petitioner had even failed to comply with the directions of this Commission in not producing the necessary documents pertaining to the restoration and allotment policy. Counsel for Respondent further stated that Petitioner"s contention that Respondent is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is also not correct. The National Commission in several judgments, specifically in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Garima Shukla & Ors. " I(1991) CPJ 1 and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. C.P. Sharma & Ors. " I(1991) CPJ 7 had, inter alia, ruled that since the Board is engaged in rendering services for consideration to the public, therefore, those who are allotted plots/houses from the Board are clearly consumers within the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have heard learned Counsels for both parties at length and have carefully considered the evidence on record.

WHILE it is fact that as per the Agreement, allottees were given 12 months time to complete construction on the plots allotted to them, there is also a provision in the Agreement (Section 5) that the Petitioner could extend the period for construction. In the instant case, though, the Respondent paid the entire money, she could not complete the construction due to various reasons and she had kept the Petitioner informed about these difficulties while seeking extension of time. Although the Petitioner did not cancel the allotment on expiry of 12 months, it cancelled the allotment in the year 1999 without even informing the Respondent that her allotment has been cancelled. Petitioner"s contention that it had published the names of those persons whose allotments were cancelled in the newspapers cannot be deemed to replace the expected requirement of informing the allottees through individual communications regarding cancellation of allotments. It was under these circumstances that the Respondent wrote several letters for restoration of plot once she came to know through a visit to the Petitioner"s office that her plot has been cancelled. Her response to what was required by her to get the plot restored also did not elicit a satisfactory response from the Petitioner/Corporation. Even her request dated 17.08.2001 seeking clarifications and further details of the amount to be deposited in order to get the allotted afresh plot at rate prevailing in September, 2000 was not sympathetically considered on the technical grounds that there was a delay of 40 days in her applying for the same. The Fora below taking into consideration all these facts held that the Petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service and gave the Respondent the required relief. We agree with the findings of the fora below which are based on credible documentary and other evidence that the Petitioner was responsible for deficiency in service in respect of an allottee who had paid the entire amount for allotment of the plot and who because of genuine difficulties could not construct on it. The Petitioner"s actions in not even informing the Respondent that her plot was cancelled, has also been established.

KEEPING in view these circumstances, we uphold the order of the State Commission and direct the Petitioner to allot a fresh plot of 600 sq. mts. to the Respondent at a similar location, size and area at the rate prevalent in September, 2000 within 60 days of the receipt of this order. Respondent is also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the earlier amount deposited for the earlier plot. We also agree that in view of the ruling of the National Commission in UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), Respondent is a consumer within the definition in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.