National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ramesh Saraf vs Urban Improvement Trust on 19 April, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2508 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 12/04/2017 in Appeal No. 56/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. RAMESH SARAF S/O. LT. SHRI INDER LAL SARAF, R/O. 43, SAMTA NAGAR, GAS GODOWN ROAD, HIRAN MANGRI SECTOR NO. 3, UDAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH SECRETARY, UAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : PETITIONER : MR.NASIR AZIZ, MS. ZAINAB ARIF KHAN,
MR. SWET KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENT : MS. ARUNA GUPTA, ADVOCATE
Dated : 19 April 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against impugned order dated 12.04.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan ('State Commission') in Appeal No.56 of 2011 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur ("District Forum") dated 21.04.2011 in Consumer Complaint No.204 of 2005.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant had applied for the conversion of a 1725 Sq Yds land, bearing Khasra No. 1345 in Village Manwa Khera, Udaipur, to urban land through the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Udaipur on 13.01.2000. The prevailing conversion rate at that time was Rs. 225 per Sq Yd. Upon receiving a demand letter from the UIT for paying Rs.58,010, corresponding to the conversion charges, he made the payment. However, subsequent to this, the State Government issued an order on 07.05.2002, revising the conversion charges at Rs.70 per Sq Yds. Interestingly, the complainant's neighbour, who owned plot No. 44, had also applied for the conversion of their plot along with the Complainant. However, the neighbour did not make the payment as per the demand letter in time and, as a result, their plot was not converted. Subsequently, the neighbour reapplied for conversion, and paid the amount as per the amended government order at the revised rate of Rs. 70 per Sq Yd. Feeling aggrieved by the situation, he approached the District Forum alleging deficiency of service by the UIT, arguing that they were entitled to pay the conversion fee at the revised rate of Rs. 70 per Sq Yd. The Complainant sought the return of the excess amount deposited due to the disparity in conversion rates.
3.Top of Form In its reply filed before the District Forum, the OP-1, Secretary of the Urban Improvement Trust, contended that the Complainant had willingly deposited a total of Rs.58,010 on 01.01.2002, as per the existing order and circular issued by the state government. OP-1 argued that the Complainant's case does not fall under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, as it pertains to a civil matter and is thus not maintainable in the consumer forum. Additionally, the OP-1 acknowledged the deposit of the excess amount by the Complainant and stated that any refund of such payment is feasible by OP-1 after receiving necessary directions from the state government. Therefore, OP-1 sought the rejection of the complaint. The OP-2 the Dy. Administration Secretary (First), Urban Development Department did not appear and the OP2 was proceeded ex-parte.
4. The learned District Forum, vide order dated 21.04.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the OP1&2 as under:
"17. As a result by deciding the case with mutual consent the complaint of the Complainant is accepted against Respondent no.1 and 2 and it is directed Respondent make payment that of Rs.40,710/- the and interest on this amount from 09.12.2005 @9% per annum otherwise after that the interest has to be paid @18% per annum and Rs.10000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses the Respondents pay to the Complainant within one month otherwise on the said amount interest @18% will have to be paid."
(Extracted from translated copy)
5. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order dated 21.04.2011, the OPs filed an Appeal and the State Commission vide order dated 12.04.2017 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum with the following observations:
"The Ld counsel for appellant argues that when the demand letter issued to the complainant at that time the conversion fee was Rs225/- per sq. yard, the demand letter was issued and he deposited the amount. The demand letter was also issued to the neighbor of the complainants' against his plot No. 44 but he did not deposit the amount and the conversion was not made. When the demand letter was issued to him the conversion charges reduced to Rs. 70. Hence the appellant is not guilty of deficiency in service. The complainant has argued that on the basis of equity, he is entitled to receive the excess amount paid.
I have heard both the sides. In my opinion, the UIT is not guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When the Complainant was given the demand letter, the rate of conversion was Rs.225/- per sq. yard which he deposited and the conversion was done. Later on when the state govt. reduced the rate there could be no justification for refunding the money to those who paid the amount in the past. This rate cannot have the retrospective effect. Hence the order of the Ld. District forum cannot be sustained. The appeal is acceptable, the order of DF is set aside. Therefore, the appeal is accepted."
(Extracted from translated copy)
6. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent had illegally charged the conversion fee @ Rs.225/- per Sq Yd instead of Rs.70/- which was the amount fixed by the State Government. He argued in favour of the order of the District Forum and sought setting aside of the order passed by State Commission.
8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/OP submitted that the revised conversion rate was issued by the State Government on 07.05.2002. This rate is prospective and not retrospective. The Petitioner deposited the conversion charges in 2001 and thus the benefit of new circular issued subsequent to the date of deposit of amount by the Petitioner cannot be extended to him. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition.
9. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.
\
10. The central issue in this case revolves around the entitlement of the Petitioner/Complainant to a refund of the conversion charges deposited by him in 2001, considering the revised rate of conversion charges set by the State Government in its order dated 07.05.2002. Top of Form
11. The primary contention revolves around the applicability of revised conversion rate approved by the Govt. Undisputedly, the revised conversion charges reducing it to Rs.70 per Sq Yd, was effective from 07.05.2002. This rate is prospective from the date of issue and cannot be given retrospective application, irrespective of rate increase or decrease. Therefore, he cannot claim refund of the conversion charges paid in 2001 @ Rs.225 per Sq Yd as applicable.
12. In view of the discussion above, the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the State Commission does not suffer any illegality or irregularity and the same is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.2508 of 2017 is dismissed.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. All pending Applications, if any stand disposed of accordingly.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER