National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Devendra Kumar vs Up Awas And Vikas Parishad on 10 September, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3277 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 26/05/2014 in Appeal No. 2543/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. DEVENDRA KUMAR R/O. MOHALLA MANPUR JAMUNA BHAWAN BUDH BAZAR MORADABAD UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UP AWAS AND VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH AWAS AYUKTA 104, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Bikash Shaw, Advocate Dated : 10 Sep 2015 ORDER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner/complainant got himself registered with the respondent for allotment of a residential plot and deposited the registration amount of Rs. 3,000/-. He thereafter, deposited an additional registration amount of Rs. 2,000/- in terms of the demand raised by the respondent, thereby increasing the total registration money to Rs. 5,000/-. In a draw of lots held on 29.01.1992, a plot was allotted to the complainant/petitioner and an allotment letter dated 11.03.1992 in this regard was issued to him. As per the terms of the allotment letter, the petitioner/complainant was required to deposit two lump sum amounts one of Rs. 11637/- and the other of Rs.8769/-, with the respondent. The balance amount was payable in 144 monthly installments commencing 01.03.1992. The allotment came to be cancelled by the respondent vide letter dated 06.09.1996 on the ground that the complainant/petitioner had failed to pay the monthly installments in terms of the allotment letter issued to him. The case of the complainant is that he did not come to know about the cancellation of the allotment. He claims that he learnt about the cancellation of the allotment in the year 2005 and therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking various reliefs. It transpires during the arguments that initially the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum at Bareilly, in the year 2003, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereupon, he filed a fresh complaint before the District Forum at Moradabad.
2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner/complainant had committed default in payment of the installments despite reminders sent to him and therefore, the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 06.09.1996.
3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, being aggrieved, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.
4. As noted earlier, it was clearly stipulated in the allotment letter itself that the balance amount shall be paid by the allottee in 144 installments of Rs. 1567/- per month commencing 01.03.1992. Therefore, the complainant was under an obligation to deposit the aforesaid installments without waiting for a reminder or demand notice from the respondent.
5. The respondent has placed on record the letter dated 23.11.1995 sent to the complainant by registered post, directing him to furnish the proof of the deposit of the installments and informing that in case of default, the allotment made to him shall be cancelled. The respondent has also placed on record a copy of the postal receipt whereby this letter was sent to the complainant. The aforesaid letter was sent to the complainant at the same address which he has given in the complaint and had also been given to the respondent. Since there is a statutory presumption of service of the demand letter sent by registered post, we have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid letter was duly served upon the complainant/petitioner in due course.
6. The cancellation letter dated 06.09.1996 was also sent by registered post and a copy of the postal receipt has been placed on record. There is a statutory presumption with respect to the service of the aforesaid cancellation letter sent by registered post, since it was dispatched at the correct address of the complainant/petitioner. Therefore, it will not be correct to say that no cancellation letter was sent to the complainant. Not only the demand letter, but also the cancellation letter was duly sent to him by the respondent. The cancellation letter sent to the complainant was followed by yet another letter dated 21.08.1997 which was also sent by registered post and a copy of the postal receipt has been placed on record. There was no response from the complainant to the communications sent by the respondent by registered post. The respondent was therefore, very much entitled to cancel the allotment made to him and forfeit the amount deposited by him in terms of the Regulation 45 of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. Regulation 45(2) of the aforesaid regulation provides for forfeiture of 20% of the registration amount and interest from the date of allotment till the date of cancellation, on the price of the plot. The amount deposited by the complainant/petitioner being less than the amount worked out by the respondent under regulation 45(2), there is no scope for directing refund of any part of the amount deposited by him.
7. Yet another reason for which the complaint is liable to be dismissed is that it is barred by limitation. The allotment letter was sent in September 1996 and was conveyed to the complainant immediately thereafter. The first complaint itself was filed by the complainant in the year 2003. The complaint having been filed after more than two years of accrual of the cause of action, was barred by Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act. The provision of Section 24(A) being mandatory, the complainant is liable to be dismissed once it is held that the cancellation letter was duly served upon the complainant/petitioner.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER