U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Through Sampati Prabandh Adhikari, Dehradun Vs. Mrs. Chameli Devi and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1108057
CourtUttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided OnJul-02-2012
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.221 of 2005
JudgeB.C. KANDPAL, PRESIDENT, MR. C.C. PANT, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KUSUM LATA SHARMA, MEMBER
AppellantU.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Through Sampati Prabandh Adhikari, Dehradun
RespondentMrs. Chameli Devi and Others
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citation: 2013 (1) cpr 80 (utt) (full bench)c.c. pant, member, j. 1. this is an appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 20.10.1993 passed by the district forum, dehradun in consumer complaint no. 363 of 1993; sh. ram prakash vs. sampati prabandh adhikari, u.p. avas evam vikas parishad, thereby directing the appellant to allot the plot in favour of the complainant on the basis of the registration no. rks/w-111. during the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant – sh. ram prakash died on 04.03.1996 and, therefore, in this appeal, the appellant has initially impleaded his wife smt. chameli devi and son sh. gauri shankar. however, during the pendency of this appeal, smt. chameli devi also expired on 09.08.2007 and on the basis of the order dated 23.04.2011 passed by the learned additional district judge, rishikesh in probate case no. 04 of 2009; harshit singhal vs. naman kumar and others, the name of sh. harshit singhal was substituted in place of late smt. chameli devi. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that in the year 1980, late sh. ram prakash had got himself registered under lower income group of the appellants housing scheme for allotment of a house and was allotted registration no. rks/w-111. it was alleged that he was not allotted any plot for a number of years. the complainant requested the appellant for allotment of the plot, but he was not heard. it was alleged that vide allotment order no. 1911 dated 04.07.1992, the complainant was allotted the plot, but the appellant vide its letter no. 228 dated 17.10.1992, cancelled the said allotment. it was further alleged that the appellant vide its letter no. 3175 dated 28.08.1992, gave intimation to the complainant regarding transfer of registration into plot. it was alleged that the act of the appellant is illegal. it was also alleged that the appellant vide its letter no. 1999 dated 20.03.1993, cancelled the allotment in favour of the complainant in an arbitrary manner. this led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the district forum, dehradun. 3. the appellant filed written statement before the district forum and denied the allegations made in the consumer complaint. 4. the district forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 20.10.1993 in the above terms. aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no. 2, who was present in person for himself as well as on behalf of respondent no. 1/1 and also perused the record. 6. the allotment of plot no. 550 made by the appellant in favour of the complainant – late sh. ram prakash vide letter no. 1852 dated 04.03.1993, was cancelled by the appellant vide letter no. 1999 dated 20.03.1993 on account of not taking appropriate action and completing the formalities by the complainant within the stipulated time, i.e., upto 15.03.1993 (paper no. 21) and vide the said letter, after making the necessary deductions, sum of rs. 3,000/- was to be refunded to the complainant. the complainant also gave his consent on 23.05.1992 for taking the plot measuring 200.00 to 300.00 sq. mts. on cash basis and made the declaration in the consent letter (paper no. 41) to the following effect, “esaus leifÙk dk lfky ij fujh{k.k dj “hindi” 7. thus, the complainant has voluntarily given his consent for allotment of plot measuring 200.00 to 300.00 sq. mts. and also agreed to take the plot after inspection on “as is where is” basis and also agreed that he will not raise any dispute / objection in that regard. the complainant, however, in his letter dated 10.03.1993 (paper no. 71) written to the appellant stated that the allotment of plot no. rks/p 187(1) has been made without his consent and the same be cancelled immediately. on the basis of the said letter, the appellant cancelled the allotment and passed an order for refund of rs. 3,000/-. we do not find any logical reason for holding the appellant deficient in providing the service because the allotment and cancellation of registration of the plot / house is the prerogative of the development authority which had launched the scheme. it is a settled law enunciated by the honble apex court in several judgments that allotment of flat does not vest indefeasible right in allottee. the respondents have not been able to prove that there was no breach of the agreement on the part of the complainant – late sh. ram prakash and that the allotment was wrongly cancelled by the development authority or that the complainant did not give any consent for allotment of plot. thus, no deficiency in service has been made out against the appellant and the district forum did not properly consider the facts of the case and wrongly passed an order, directing the appellant to allot the plot in favour of the complainant on the basis of the registration no. rks/w-111. of course, the complainant was entitled to the refund of rs. 3,000/-, which the appellant has also agreed to refund vide letter no. 1999 dated 20.03.1993. since the said amount has not yet been paid by the appellant to the respondents, the appellant is liable to pay interest on the said amount @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment, but the order impugned passed by the district forum is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. for the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. order impugned dated 20.10.1993 passed by the district forum is set aside. the appellant is directed to pay sum of rs. 3,000/- to the respondents together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

C.C. Pant, Member, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.10.1993 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 363 of 1993; Sh. Ram Prakash Vs. Sampati Prabandh Adhikari, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, thereby directing the appellant to allot the plot in favour of the complainant on the basis of the registration No. RKS/W-111. During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant – Sh. Ram Prakash died on 04.03.1996 and, therefore, in this appeal, the appellant has initially impleaded his wife Smt. Chameli Devi and son Sh. Gauri Shankar. However, during the pendency of this appeal, Smt. Chameli Devi also expired on 09.08.2007 and on the basis of the order dated 23.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Probate Case No. 04 of 2009; Harshit Singhal Vs. Naman Kumar and others, the name of Sh. Harshit Singhal was substituted in place of late Smt. Chameli Devi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that in the year 1980, late Sh. Ram Prakash had got himself registered under Lower Income Group of the appellants housing scheme for allotment of a house and was allotted registration No. RKS/W-111. It was alleged that he was not allotted any plot for a number of years. The complainant requested the appellant for allotment of the plot, but he was not heard. It was alleged that vide allotment order No. 1911 dated 04.07.1992, the complainant was allotted the plot, but the appellant vide its letter No. 228 dated 17.10.1992, cancelled the said allotment. It was further alleged that the appellant vide its letter No. 3175 dated 28.08.1992, gave intimation to the complainant regarding transfer of registration into plot. It was alleged that the act of the appellant is illegal. It was also alleged that the appellant vide its letter No. 1999 dated 20.03.1993, cancelled the allotment in favour of the complainant in an arbitrary manner. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.

3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations made in the consumer complaint.

4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 20.10.1993 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2, who was present in person for himself as well as on behalf of respondent No. 1/1 and also perused the record.

6. The allotment of plot No. 550 made by the appellant in favour of the complainant – late Sh. Ram Prakash vide letter No. 1852 dated 04.03.1993, was cancelled by the appellant vide letter No. 1999 dated 20.03.1993 on account of not taking appropriate action and completing the formalities by the complainant within the stipulated time, i.e., upto 15.03.1993 (Paper No. 21) and vide the said letter, after making the necessary deductions, sum of Rs. 3,000/- was to be refunded to the complainant. The complainant also gave his consent on 23.05.1992 for taking the plot measuring 200.00 to 300.00 sq. mts. on cash basis and made the declaration in the consent letter (Paper No. 41) to the following effect, “eSaus lEifÙk dk LFky ij fujh{k.k dj

“Hindi”

7. Thus, the complainant has voluntarily given his consent for allotment of plot measuring 200.00 to 300.00 sq. mts. and also agreed to take the plot after inspection on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis and also agreed that he will not raise any dispute / objection in that regard. The complainant, however, in his letter dated 10.03.1993 (Paper No. 71) written to the appellant stated that the allotment of plot No. RKS/P 187(1) has been made without his consent and the same be cancelled immediately. On the basis of the said letter, the appellant cancelled the allotment and passed an order for refund of Rs. 3,000/-.

We do not find any logical reason for holding the appellant deficient in providing the service because the allotment and cancellation of registration of the plot / house is the prerogative of the Development Authority which had launched the scheme. It is a settled law enunciated by the Honble Apex Court in several judgments that allotment of flat does not vest indefeasible right in allottee. The respondents have not been able to prove that there was no breach of the agreement on the part of the complainant – late Sh. Ram Prakash and that the allotment was wrongly cancelled by the Development Authority or that the complainant did not give any consent for allotment of plot. Thus, no deficiency in service has been made out against the appellant and the District Forum did not properly consider the facts of the case and wrongly passed an order, directing the appellant to allot the plot in favour of the complainant on the basis of the registration No. RKS/W-111. Of course, the complainant was entitled to the refund of Rs. 3,000/-, which the appellant has also agreed to refund vide letter No. 1999 dated 20.03.1993. Since the said amount has not yet been paid by the appellant to the respondents, the appellant is liable to pay interest on the said amount @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment, but the order impugned passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 20.10.1993 passed by the District Forum is set aside. The appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondents together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. No order as to costs.