State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ayodhya Faizabad Vikas Pradikarn vs Mahesh Chandra Agrawal on 15 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1100/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/03/2016 in Case No. C/389/1993 of District Faizabad) 1. Ayodhya Faizabad Vikas Pradikarn Faizabad ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mahesh Chandra Agrawal Faizabad ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 15 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2016 (Against judgment and order dated 09-03-2016 in Complaint Case No.389 of 1993 of the District Consumer Forum, Faizabad)
01.Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority Office at Liad Gate, Chauk Faizabad City Through its Vice Chairman
02.Secretary Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority Civil Lines, Faizabad ...Appellants Vs. Mahesh Chandra Agrawal S/o Late Krishna Chandra Gupta R/o Chowk, Faizabad City and District Faizabad ...Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT For the Appellant : Sri Veer Raghav Chaubey, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri Ajai Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Dated : 15-01-2018 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT(ORAL)
This is an appeal filed before State Commission under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 09-03-2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 389 of 1993 Mahesh Chandra Agrawal V/s Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and another whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint partially and ordered opposite parties to refund Rs.50,000/- to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till date of payment.
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, opposite parties of complaint have filed this appeal Learned Counsel Mr. Veera Raghav Chaubye appeared for appellants.
Learned Counsel Mr. Ajai Kumar Pandey appeared for respondent.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned :2: judgment and order as well as records.
In brief relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant Rajeev Sahni has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of advertisement made by opposite parties the respondent/complainant got registration for a shop in Liad Gate Project of opposite parties and deposited Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.80,000/- which was the value of the constructed shop. Thereafter respondent/complainant was allotted shop in the said project but subsequently the opposite parties reduced the size of shop and raised price of shop. Therefore, P. I. L. was filed before Hon'ble High Court wherein interim order was passed by Hon'ble High Court and the project could not be completed within time. In the meantime the respondent/complainant sent application to opposite parties with request to refund money deposited with interest but the opposite parties neither delivered possession of the shop to respondent/complainant; nor refunded money deposited by him. Consequently respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum.
Written statement has been filed by opposite parties before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that the price of the shop was fixed in year 1991 on the basis of actual cost. Thereafter P.I.L. was filed before Hon'ble High Court wherein Hon'ble High Court ordered respondent/complainant to deposit increased price but the respondent/complainant did not make payment accordingly. Therefore he is not entitled to get possession of the shop in question.
In written statement it has been further stated that the respondent/complainant may be given possession of shop in question if he makes payment in terms of allotment order.
After having considered the pleadings of parties as well as evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has passed impugned judgment and order as mentioned above.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law. Appellants have committed no deficiency in service.:3:
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has supported judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum and contended that the appeal has no force. It should be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
Indisputably respondent/complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- in year 1987 with opposite parties for the shop having total sale price of Rs.80,000/- but he could not get the shop within time and subsequently increased price has been demanded by opposite parties. But respondent/complainant has not paid increased price. Therefore considering whole facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the District Consumer Forum has rightly ordered to refund money deposited by respondent/complainant with interest and the rate of interest fixed by District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be on higher side.
In view of above I am of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference in impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum. Appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly.
Parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.
Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Forum alongwith interest accrued for disposal in accordance with this judgment.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN ) PRESIDENT Pnt.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN] PRESIDENT