National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Meerut Development Authority vs Smt.Rashmi Gahlot on 21 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 26.04.2011 in Appeal No.388/2005 of the State Commission, U.P.) Meerut Development Authority Through its Secretary Meerut, (U.P.) ....... Petitioner Versus Smt.Rashmi Gahlot W/o U.K.Gahlot R/o Nirman Khand-II, Lok Nirman Vibhag McRoberts Ganj Kanpur (U.P.) ... Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : In person Pronounced on : 21st May, 2014 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA Revision Petition No. 2907 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 26.04.2011, passed by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (short, State Commission) in First Appeal No.388 of 2005.
2. The facts of the present case as per complaint are that petitioner/opposite party had announced for a Residential Scheme of Satabdi Nagar at Meerut and accordingly, in the year 1989 they had invited applications for registration of plots as well of houses in the Residential Scheme of Satabdi Nagar.
3. The respondent/complainant had applied for registration under Satabdi Nagar Residential Scheme on 8.12.1989 and had deposited the requisite amount of Rs.15,000/- vide challan No.0532.
4. The respondent was allotted the registration No.00079286.
5. The respondent was informed that now the allotment of plots shall be done by lottery.
6. The petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent vide their letter dated 20.2.1991 and in the same letter, it had also mentioned that the estimated cost of the allotted property would be Rs.1,44,000/- approximately and the reservation fee was Rs.30,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.99,000/- was to be paid in 8 equal installments each of Rs.12,375/- and the date of payment of installments were also mentioned in the said letter.
7. The respondent on receipt of the letter dated 20.2.1991 of the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 30.4.1991.
8. In compliance of the letter dated 20.2.1991, the respondent has deposited the installment amount of Rs.12,375/- is five installments each totaling to Rs.61,875/- on different dates.
9. The petitioner vide their letter no.3139 dated 19.6.1992 then informed the respondent that the draw of lottery had taken place on 24.4.1992 and the respondent had been allotted a plot of land measuring 300 square yard, in type B, Sector-05 bearing No.C-301 of the Satabdi Nagar Residential Scheme, Phase-02 and at the time of allotment of the estimated cost of the aforesaid plot of land was Rs.1,44,000/-.
10. The petitioner issued a notice to the respondent vide letter No.4531 dated 7.7.1993 and had informed the respondent that the final cost of the allotted plot of land is fixed as Rs.1,80,000/- and after adjusting the deposit amount of Rs.1,06,875/- the remaining amount to be paid is Rs.73,125/- and they could deposit the balance amount in six monthly installments with interest @ 16% p.a.
11. On receipt of the above said letter of the petitioner, the respondent in compliance of the same deposited the entire amount of Rs.2,01,117.50 within the stipulated time.
12. After depositing the entire amount, the respondent waited patiently for a fairly long time and made written requests time and again to the petitioner to give her possession of the land. But, the petitioner neither replied to any of the letters of the respondent nor gave the peaceful vacant possession of the plot of land bearing No.C-301 of Satabdi Nagar to the respondent.
13. The respondent had written a letter to the petitioner on 17.12.1996 and informed the petitioner that the plot of land bearing No.C-301 was not in a developed area and therefore, the respondent should be given a plot of the same size in lieu of allotted earlier plot under the Ganga Nagar Scheme.
14. The petitioner vide its letter dated 1.1.1997 in response to letter dated 17.12.1996 of the respondent had informed the allottee that if she desired then the plot allotted under Satabdi Nagar Residential Scheme can be transferred to the Ganga Nagar Residential Scheme, Meerut but for this the allottee had to deposit the conversion charges along with the cost of the land.
15. The respondent vide her letter dated 7.1.1997, in response to the above said letter of the petitioner informed the respondent that she was desirous for conversion only because the plot of land allotted to her in Satabdi Nagar was not in a developed area and that the said plot No.C-301 was allotted to the respondent on 26.4.1992 and she should be given another plot in any other scheme on the same rate as was prevalent on 26.4.1992 and possession should be given to her.
16. The petitioner till date has not given the possession of the allotted plot No.C-301 of Satabdi Nagar Scheme, Meerut or any other plot from from any other scheme.
17. The factum of the fact is that with regard to the plot allotted to the respondent bearing No.C-301, there is no development even till today and it has come to the knowledge of the respondent that till today some farmers are doing farming on the aforesaid plot.
18. The respondent had deposited the last installment on 13.1.1996 with the petitioner. But from 1996 till today the petitioner had not been given the possession of the plot of land in question or any other plot in lieu of that and this is clearly deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner.
19. The petitioner had not given the possession of plot No.C-301 of Satabadi Nagar Residential Scheme to the respondent in time. Since, last number of years had the respondent got the house constructed on the plot No.301 of the Satabdi Nagar Residential Scheme, Meerut then her house would have been constructed at cost less than of Rs.3 lakhs than what it would cost her today. The respondent had to incur additional expenses in getting her house constructed and it is only due to deficiency of service on account of the petitioner.
20. The petitioner has earned a huge amount of profit out of the amount as deposited by the respondent with the petitioner.
21. Since, the petitioner had not given the possession of the plot of land bearing No.C-301 of the Satabadi Nagar Residential Scheme to the respondent therefore, they were liable to pay the interest on the amount deposited with the petitioner from the date, it was deposited till today and the detail of deposits made from time to time.
22. The respondent had prayed for the following relief ;
That the respondent/complainant be given the peaceful possession of the completely developed plot No.C-301, Sector-5, under the Sataabdi Nagar Residential Scheme from the petitioner and in case the petitioner is not in a position to give the possession then the respondent is to be given the possession then the respondent is to be given the possession of other plot of land as per her choice at the rate of prevailing in 1989 by the petitioner.
The respondent be given the interest @ 18% on the amount deposited with the petitioner from the date of amount is deposited till the date payment is made.
The petitioner asked to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the respondent towards compensation for mental and physical harassment.
The petitioner be directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-
towards the cost of the petition to the respondent.
23. The petitioner/opposite party in their written statement before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Meerut (short, District Forum) accepted all the averments made in para 1 to 12 of the complaint. With regard to the averments made in para 13 of the complaint, the petitioner had stated as follows;
13. That the averments of clause 13 of the complaint are not acceptable. The opposite party can go for conversion of the house/plot of land only as per the rules and for conversion, the conversion fee is to be paid and the prevailing rate is to be charged. In pursuance of the said rules letter No.301-1 dated 21.7.2003 was issued to the complainant and the complainant was requested to give her consent on two issues and it was suggested to the complainant to give their consent at lease for one point latest by 20.8.2003 in the office of the authority. But the complainant has not forwarded their written consent as requested to them vide letter No.30-1 dated 21.7.2003 and have unnecessarily filed the present suit. Therefore, the contents of the statement of complainant are acceptable.
It further stated that ;
That the authority have informed the complainant vide their letter No.301-1 dated 21.7.2003 that the development work at the plot of land as allotted to her is yet to be completed and therefore, you can be given any other plots of any other scheme on the same term-n-condition or else you can withdraw your deposited amount with the maximum amount of interest. It was further requested to them to give their expressed written consent on either of the above said issues on or before 20.8.2003 but no written consent was given by the complainant.
That no pay any interest to the complainant is not justified.
24. District Forum vide their order dated 5.2.2005, allowed the complaint and also after hearing counsel came to the conclusion that ;
In the aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of District Forum, it is proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of the defendant. Complainants this statement is also acceptable that since year 1989, during a period of 14-15 years there is huge rise in the pricing of urban residential property and cost of building materials as well as labour charges and due to all this it is clearly evident that the complainant will suffer heavy financial loss. In view of above stated facts and available evidence, in the opinion of District Forum it is proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of the defendant and the complainant is eligible for getting his payments, made by him to the defendant, back along with interest. Accordingly, complainants claim is liable to be admitted.
The District Forum then gave the following order ;
Hereby complainants claim is admitted and the defendant is directed to pay to the complainant her deposits along with 15% interest rate from the date of their deposits to the date of payment within one month.
The defendant is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards fine and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. If this order is not complied in case of its being final then proceedings u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will be conducted against the defendant.
25. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, vide their order dated 26.4.2011, dismissed the appeal and held that ;
Besides the above the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Anil Kumar Mishra while opposing the arguments/statements of appellant and stating the District Forums decision/order in question as just and legal in support of his statements cited the judgments pronounced by Honble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. Vs.S.P.Gupta, (2004) (2) CPR 72 (SC), Civil Appeal No.5819 of 2002 dated 28.7.2004 and by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in (1) Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Poonam Rehlen, 2004 CPC 11, Review Petition No.323/2003 dated 24.4.2003 ; (2) Malkit Singh Vs.Estate Officer, HUDA & Ors., 2003 (2) CPC 296, Review Petition No.1087/1998 dated 15.3.2002 ; (3) Smt. Veena Khanna Vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. & Ors., First Appeal No.155/2006 dated 9.7.2007 and (4) Jagdish Ram Gupta Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Secretary, 2002(3) AWC 4.165 (NC), Review Petition No.1097/2001 dated 10.1.2002. In all the above mentioned citations the Honble Courts expressed that after allotment of plot/flat if there is incomplete development work or for any other reason possession is delayed or in case of allotment of alternate plot/flat charging of additional money or charging conversion charges at the prevalent price of alternate plot/flat by the Development Authority is improper and the complainant is eligible for getting refund his entire deposits along with an interest @ 15% - 18% per annum.
Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of present matter, also in the light of above mentioned judgments passed by Honble Supreme Court and Honble National Commission, we have the clear opinion that the District Forums decision/order in question being lawful, completely just and details does not require any interference and the present appeal being fact less and meritless is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER Appeal is dismissed. District Forum, Meeruts decision/order dated 28.7.1998 passed in Suit No.234/1998 is confirmed.
Both the parties bear their respective expenses regarding the present appeal by themselves.
Both the parties be provided the certified copy of this order as per rules.
26. Hence, the revision petition.
27. The main grounds for the revision petition are that ;
Because the State Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner was ready to make the allotment of another plot by way of the letter dated 21.7.2003 whereby the respondent was called upon to give her consent for alternative plot on old rates and secondly refund of the deposited amount coupled with interest at the prevailing rate, but the respondent failed to give her consent on either counts.
Because the fora below have failed to appreciate that in the year 2003 the interest rate of banks was between 6 to 7% and from no approach of the law and practice it can be held that interest rate would be 15%. It is submitted that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Meerut Development Authority VS. N.K.Mehta in Civil Appeal No.4637 of 2009 reduced the interest awarded from 18% to 10% per annum.
Because the petitioner is liable to make the refund of the deposited amount along with interest @ 10% from 21.7.2003 and not beforehand as the respondent has opted not to give any reply to that letter.
Because the State Commission should not be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner is not a profit making entrepreneur, it is a public undertaking and dedicated to the public service. Therefore, on the project being unsuccessful, the petitioner could be charged the interest at the prevailing rate of interest on saving account and not on the basis of lending rate of interest.
28. We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondent and have gone through the record.
29. As per the revision petition during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum, the petitioner had issued a letter dated 21.7.2003 calling upon the respondent for compromise and two options were offered firstly, the respondent shall be allotted plot in any other scheme on the same terms and conditions if she consents, and secondly, she would withdraws the deposited amount coupled with the maximum amount of interest. However, respondent did not reply to the letter. Counsel for petitioner stated that they are willing to refund the amount as per order of the District Forum which was upheld by the State Commission.
The only dispute is regarding the rate of interest. The District Forum has awarded interest @ 15% p.a. whereas before the State Commission, it was of the view that the respondent is eligible for getting refund of her entire deposits with interest @ 15% - 18% p.a. and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
30. Since, the respondent did not appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission, her demand for plot cannot be entertained at this stage and the District Forum/State Commission order qua the respondent as their issue is final.
31. We would like to draw attention to para 9 of the complaint that the petitioner had issued a notice to the respondent vide letter dated 7.7.1993 and had informed the respondent that the final cost of the allotted plot of land is fixed as Rs.1,80,000/- and after adjusting the deposit amount of Rs.1,06,875/-, the remaining amount to be paid is Rs.73,125/-. She was asked to do deposit the balance amount in six monthly installments with interest @ 16% p.a. This statement of the respondent has been accepted by the petitioner. Further, in para 24 to their reply they had committed to refund the amount deposited with the maximum amount of interest.
32. The counsel for the petitioner placed on record a citation wherein the interest was reduced from 18% to 10% p.a in the case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. N.K.Mehta in Civil Appeal No.4637 of 2009. On the other hand, in the order of the State Commission while upholding the order of the District Forum which awarded the interest @ 15%, the State Commission has given various citations where the interest awarded was between 13% to 18% p.a. the rate would be depend upon the facts of the case.
33. In the instant case, as mentioned above, the petitioner had asked the respondent to deposit the balance amount with interest @ 16%. Hence, the order of the District Forum awarding the interest @ 15% does not seem excessive. Especially as though the petitioner had booked a plot in 1989, and deposited the last installment on 13.1.1996, yet, she was not been given possession of the plot allotted to her in April, 1992 nor had they refunded the money. It is only in 2003 that an alternative plot was offered and that too after a demand for payment of conversion charges and at the rate prevailing in 2003.
34. Honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ;
Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.
35. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. Since, both the fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which do not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, present petition is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
36. Petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by way of demand draft in the name of the respondent and remaining cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
37. List on 18.7.2014 for compliance.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ....
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER Sonia/