URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, ALWAR vs NIRANJAN LAL

THE main question which falls for consideration is whether an allottee who has waddled out of commitments deserves any relief?. Sh. Niranjan Lal , the complainant was allotted a plot from Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar. He paid Rs.1,000/ - vide receipt dated 31.08.1987. He further deposited Rs.4740/ - on 07.07.1988. Thereafter, it appears that he did not deposit the instalments. However, the OP accepted three installments alongwith interest and penalty total being Rs.6532.04 on 12/13.06.1991. The complainant was informed about the cancellation of the allotment of the plot on 19.07.1991. However, the complainant denies having received the demand letters or letter of cancellation of plot.

THE District Forum dismissed his plea of allotment of plot but directed the OP to return a sum of Rs.6532.04 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant did not receive either the letter of cancellation or any other demand notices. It ordered that the plot be given to the complainant and if any other amount is due, the notice pertaining to the same would be issued within 30 days for deposit of the residue amount by the complainant. It also directed to give possession and allotment letter to the complainant as per Law. Rs.5,000/ - were awarded in favour of the complainant towards mental agony and towards costs of litigation. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently argued that the complainant did not receive any notice, either of demand of arrears of plot or of cancellation of the allotment. Although, his allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 19.07.1991, yet, he denied knowledge about it. He came to know about it on 07.01.2010 vide letter dated 07.01.2010, wherein he was informed about the fact that his allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 19.07.1991. He filed the complainant on 20.04.2010.

IT is crystal clear that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. He has suppressed the material facts. The complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. In his appeal the following averments were made by the complainant: - "That the complainant could not deposit the installments in time on 15.10.1988, 15.01.1989 and on 15.04.1989. That the complainant had received a letter dated 12.12.1989 from the opposite party informing that he had not deposited the installments in time and hence deposit the installments. That the Nigar Viaks Niayas, Alwar had taken a decision to regularize the allotments who have not deposited their installments in time. That the complainant had also made an application to regularize his allotment and had offered to deposit the amount of the installments along with interests. That the Secretary, Nigar Viaks Niayas, Alwar had ordered to regularize the allotment on deposit of the installments of Rs.4198.64 paisa alongwith 15% interest amount to Rs.1913 and 10% penalty amount amounting to Rs.419/ - total amounting to Rs.6532.04. That in pursuance of the above order the complainant had deposited Rs.6532.04."

TWO facts are clear from the above said averments. First of all, the complainant received the letter dated 12.12.1989. The said letter is crucial and determinative of the controversy in question. Before turning to the said letter, it may be mentioned here that the allotment letter itself mentions that the balance payment (50% cost of the plot) was to be made as per the following schedule. The said para is reproduced here as follows: - "Balanace payment (50% cost of the plot) to be made as per the following schedule: "Sr. No. Date Prin.amt. Interst Penalty Total 15/10/88 1189.00 66.88 59.45 1315.33 15/ 1/89 1189.00 111.45 118.80 1419.36 15/ 4/89 1189.00 156.05 118.90 1463.95 You are requested to pay strictly within the time limits otherwise penalty as per rule shall be imposed."

THE petitioner has also produced notice dated 03.08.1989 which the complainant denies to have received, wherein the demand letter with warning was issued.

THEREAFTER , the above said letter dated 12.12.1989 was received. The complainant in the complaint did not state in so many words that he had received this letter. On the contrary, he categorically denies having received the same. This letter reveals that the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.7392/ - with interest and penalty otherwise the plot was to be cancelled within a period of seven days. There is not an iota of evidence which may go to show that the complainant had deposited the said amount within 7 days.

AGAIN , adverting back to the averments made in the appeal, by the complainant, there is no evidence, worth the name, to show that Nigar Viaks Niayas, Alwar took a decision to regularize the allotments for those, who had not deposited the instalments in time. The application or its copy allegedly moved by the complainant to regularize his allotment did not see the light of the day. The order of Secretary, Nigar Viaks Niayas, Alwar to regularize the allotment on deposit of the instalments was not produced on the record. The story put forward by the complainant does not just stack up. It may be also mentioned here that the Government Institutions have no hesitation in accepting the amount. The order regarding the calculation of amount was also withheld. This is a case where the allotment was cancelled and the money was accepted thereafter, inadvertently. The story propounded by the complainant is made out of whole cloth.

IT is also surprising to note that after receipt of notice dated 12.12.1989, the complainant kept quiet for a period of 11 years. There is an inordinate delay in filing the case under the Consumer Protection Act. He should have got the cancellation letter cancelled after deposit of the said money. That document of infinite importance was not produced.

BEFORE concluding the conduct and behavior of OP deserves a look. The authorities of OP conduct business in a happy go lucky manner. They have no record to show that the above said documents were received by the complainant. They have no evidence to show that they have returned Rs.6532.04 to the complainant, though they have made the averment in this context. Where does that amount vanish? The attitude of authorities adds a shocking dimension to the situation. The OP is terribly remiss in the discharge of their duty. This smacks of a fig leaf job. We, therefore, order that the complainant is not entitled to the allotment of plot but entire amount deposited by him i.e. Rs.1,000/ -, Rs.4740/ - and Rs.6532.04 be returned to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from 12.06.1991 till realization.