National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Purshottam Singh Gupta vs Vice President, Moradabad Development ... on 11 April, 2002
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Mr. P.S. Gupta against the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.
2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that the Petitioner applied to the Respondent Authority in October, 1933 for allotment of a plot measuring 200 m in Mansarovar Avasiya Scheme. All demanded amounts, including irritatingly small amounts, from time to time were paid in time yet the possession of the plat was given only in August, 2000. In the meantime the Petitioner had moved the District Forum in 1987 asking for several reliefs. The District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that since the dispute relates to pricing on the plot, District Forum can no go into it. On filing an appeal against this order, the State Commission allowing the appeal and the main grounds of complaint i.e. directing the Respondent to charge Rs. 1400/- per m for the excess area i.e. the same price at which original plot was allotted, also awarded interest @ 18% on the deposited amount and cost of Rs. 2,000/-
3. Main prayer in the revision petition relates to refund of certain amount allegedly charged in excess in excess, award of rate of interest @ 21% or 18%, award of compensation for harassment, award further costs and any other amount deemed just and proper. These are resisted by the Respondent on the ground that consumer forums cannot go into the question of pricing and all other relief sought have already been awarded by the State Commission, hence petition needs to be dismissed.
4. Perusal of the material on record shows that the main grouse of the complaint now relates to refund of amount of Rs. 19,306/- as calculated by him in the body of the Petition. These calculations relate to the pricing of the plot which cannot be gone into by the consumer forums. Yet even if see the two points raised by him, we see no merit in these contentions also. Repeatedly a point is made by the Petitioner/Complainant about charge of interest of Rs. 2,058/-. It has been done because the Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,34,400/- on 2.4.94 of his own will against demand of Rs. 1,40,000/-. This was done perhaps on the basis of a wrong impression in the mind of the Complainant that there was 2% rebate on deposit if the remainder 50% amount is paid in lump-sum whereas as per terms of brochure, the 2% rebate was available on deposit of full cost at the time of registration. For the short payment interest was charged. We see nothing wrong with this. The State Commission had also gone into all the points raised before us and had not conceded anything in its well-reasoned order. In case of delayed handing over of possession, this Commission had already held in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar and Ors. (Revision Petition No. 1197 of 1998) that the consumer shall be eligible for interest @ 18% for the deposited amount which has also been done in this case. We find ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission The Revision Petition is dismissed with no orders on costs.