State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indore Dev. Authority vs Ku. Madhuri on 21 April, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL No. 03 / 2010.
Indore Development Authority,
Through President,
Pradhikaran House,
7 Race Course Road, Indore (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1. Ku. Madhuri
d/o Shri Tej Singh Chandel,
Add : 114/02, Bhavanipur Colony,
Indore (M.P.).
2. President,
GajanandGrahNirman Co-operative
Housing Society,
Add : 1 Mani Center,
Near Ranjeet Hanuman Mandir,
Scheme No.71, Indore (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS.
APPEAL No. 81 / 2010.
GajanandGrihNirmanSahakari
SansthaMydt.,
Through the Officer Incharge,
114/2, Bhawanipur Colony,
Indore (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1. Ku. Madhuri
d/o Shri Tej Singh Chandel,
1, Money Center,
Near Ranjit Hanuman Mandir,
Scheme No.71, Indore (M.P.).
2. Indore Development Authority,
Through the President,
7, Race Course Road,
Indore (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS.
- 2-
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI PARAG KALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT / KU.
MADHURI CHANDEL.
SHRI DEEPESH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 /
GAJANAND GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MYDT./ APPELLANT IN APPEAL
NO.81/2010.
SHRI DEEPESH SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2/
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / APPELLANT
IN APPEAL NO.03/2010/
ORDER
(Passed on 21 / 04 /2022) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Smt) Monika Malik, Presiding Member :
Both these appeals arise out of the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.1346/2008.
2. Briefly put, case of the complainant is such that she became member of the Gajanand Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Mydt. / opposite party
- 3- no.1 and had deposited a sum of Rs.1,72,906/- with the opposite party / Society. She was allotted a plot No.14 measuring 1500 sq.ft. in Gopur Extension, colony being developed by opposite party no.2. It is alleged that despite having received the said amount, no plot was delivered to her. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, she approached the District Commission seeking execution of conveyance deed in respect of the plot allotted to her in the said colony.
3. The opposite party no.1 were proceeded ex-parte before the District Commission. The opposite party no.2 filed reply and submitted that 87 plots were available with them in the said colony and list of 87 eligible members was sent by the opposite party no.1 / Society to the Indore Development Authority. Accordingly sale deed was executed in favour of those 87 members.
4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to execute a conveyance deed in respect of plot No.14 measuring 30 x 50 sq. ft. i.e. 1500 sq. ft. after obtaining the development charges from the complainant, if due. In case, the execution of the said sale deed could not be done due to any reason, then alternatively opposite parties were directed to execute conveyance deed in
- 4- respect of similar size plot in the same colony. Additionally Rs.5000/- as compensation with Rs.1000/- as costs was also awarded.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties had obtained amount towards cost of the plot from her, but despite that the conveyance deed with respect to said plot was not executed by the opposite parties. It is clear deficiency in service on their part and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be maintained.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 / Society argued that the opposite party no.2 did not give the adequate number of plots and out of 108 Members of the Society, only 87 were entitled for possession of the plots. Accordingly those 87 plots were allotted to the eligible members. The District Commission has wrongly passed the impugned order in relation to the execution of sale deed for plot No.14 when such plot number does not exist for allotment. The complainant was a defaulter member and, therefore, no plot was given to her. On this ground, he argued, that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / Indore Development Authority argued that they were liable to allot 87 developed plots to 87 members of the Society and, therefore, they have complied with their part of the
- 5- obligation. The District Commission did not consider the documents on record, which clearly show that there is a list of 87 members, which was approved by the Society. They were given plots and registered sale deed has been executed in their favour. There is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2. Also the District Commission failed to consider that the complainant was a defaulter member and her name is not there in the list of members, approved by the Society, which was sent by the opposite party no.1 / Society to the opposite party no.2. Hence, opposite party no.2 did not execute sale deed in the name of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set- aside.
8. It is a categorical submission by the opposite party / Society that out of 108 members, list of 87 eligible members were prepared, in whose favour the sale deed of the allotted plots was executed, since the opposite party no.2 offered 87 developed plots. According to the Society, the complainant was a defaulter member and after initial deposits no further amount was deposited by her towards entire cost of the plot and the District Commission has wrongly issued directions with respect to plot No.14 when no such plot number exists in the colony, developed by the opposite party no.1.
- 6-
9. As we carefully peruse the evidence available on record we find that there is a request letter from the complainant asking her to allot a specific plot number with an undertaking that if she defaults regarding payments of instalments, then the society may cancel allotment. However, there is no allotment letter confirming allotment of plot to her. The opposite party no.1 society has maintained that the complainant was a defaulter member and no development charges were deposited by her. The opposite party no.2 has stated that the complainant's name was not in the list of 87 eligible members, which was sent by the opposite party no.1. When no such allotment letter is available, it cannot be presumed that a plot was allotted to the complainant in the colony being developed by the opposite party no.1 / Society and she was wrongly denied her claim on sale deed of said plot. Therefore, the direction in the impugned order regarding execution of conveyance deed in favour of the complainant cannot be sustained. However, it cannot be denied that the complainant had made deposits with the opposite party / Society which still lies with them. They have not offered refund of the amount deposited by the complainant, which the complainant deserves.
10. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be modified. In view of the categorical submission by both the opposite parties that a list of 87 members was already sent to the Indore Development Authority
- 7- with respect to 87 developed plots, available in the colony, being developed by them and consequently sale deed of such plots is already executed, and also that there is no availability of any plot in the said colony, the opposite party no.1 shall refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @18% p.a. from the date of its deposit and its realization. Directions in the impugned order against the opposite party no.2 / Indore Development Authority is set-aside. The directions contained in sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 12 of the impugned order are also directed to be paid by opposite party no.1.
11. With the observations and modifications as above, both these appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.
12. This order be retained in Appeal No.03/2010 and a copy of the same be kept in the record of Appeal No.81/2010.
(Dr. (Smt) Monika Malik) (S. S. Bansal) (Ashok Kumar Tiwari)
Presiding Member Member Member
Phadke