VIPIN KUMAR GARG Vs MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH SECRETARY

IA/8107/2013

By this application petitioner is seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in filing of the revision petition. Heard. In view of the reason given in the application and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner delay is condoned.

This revision is directed against the order of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "the State Commission") dated 7.8.2013 in first appeal No.1329/2012 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/opposite party and set aside the order of the District Forum, Meerut passed in consumer complaint No.517/2010

Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner raised a consumer dispute before the District Forum, Meerut alleging that pursuant to a development scheme known as Rakshapram Residential Scheme Phase-II floated by the respondent authority, the petitioner applied for registration of a plot measuring 112.50 sq. meter. Alongwith the application for registration, fee of Rs.67,500/- was deposited in cash. On 27.2.2009 the respondent authority issued an allotment letter in favour of the petitioner detailing the consideration price of the plot allotted to him alongwith the payment scheme. The complainant was allotted plot No.AP/50 measuring 112.50 sq. meters. The complainant in furtherance of the allotment letter deposited a further sum of Rs.67,500/- on 16.3.2009 and thereafter made payment of further installments. Thus, the total consideration value of Rs.6,85,414/- was paid as on 30.5.2009. According to the complainant despite of having received entire consideration amount for the allotted plot, the opposite party has failed to give possession of the plot to the complainant. Claiming this to be deficiency in service the complainant filed the consumer complaint.

The opposite party in the written statement admitted that the complainant was allotted plot No.AP/50 measuring 112.50 sq. meter and he had paid the consideration amount for the same. The respondent further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because the respondent was unable to deliver the possession because of stay order passed by the Hon''ble High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in writ petition No.5837/2006.

Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence held that the respondent has committed deficiency in service by failing to deliver the possession of the allotted plot to the complainant and allowed the complaint with following direction: - " The complaint presented by the complainant against the respondent Meerut Development Authority is accepted. The respondent Meerut Development Authority has been ordered that the total amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.6,85,415/- from the date of the possession of the plot 30.5.2009 till date with 10% interest per year should be refunded within 1 month and except this Rs.30,000/- as complaint expense should also be paid else the complaint is free to act further against the respondent Meerut Development Authority under section-25/27 of the Consumer Protection Rules & Regulations, 1986."

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the respondent approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission observed that the respondent authority has never denied to give possession of plot to the complainant and that the possession could not be delivered because of stay order dated 13.9.2006 passed by Hon''ble High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench. The State Commission thus concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The State Commission, thus allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The order of the State Commission suffers from a grave infirmity for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that admittedly the subject land on which the project was to be developed was under litigation before Hon''ble High Court in the year 2006 and the status quo order regarding possession of the land was passed on 13.9.2006 whereas despite of there being stay order of the High Court the respondent authority floated the project in the year 2009. The aforesaid act of the respondent in itself amounts to unfair trade practice. When the respondent was restrained from parting with possession of the land in question, the respondent should not have floated the project and received money from unsuspecting consumers. Thus, under the circumstances, I am of the view that this is a clear case of deficiency in service and the District Forum has rightly directed

the respondent authority to refund the consideration amount received from the complainant with 10% interest thereon.

In view of the discussion above, the impugned order of the State Commission based upon incorrect appreciation of facts, is not sustainable. I, therefore, allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. Respondent authority to comply with the order of the District Forum within 30 days, failing which the decretal amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of this order.