National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jagdish Ram Gupta vs Ghaziabad Development Authority ... on 10 January, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitioner-complaint is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal of the respondent-opposite party and dismissing the complaint.
2. Complaint of the petitioner was that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 88,000/- for booking of a plot in Indirapuram Scheme of the respondent cost of which was Rs. 1,66,000/-. That amount was deposited by him uptill February, 1994. Afterwards petitioner was told that the could not be allotted plot in Indirapuram Scheme and that he would be allotted plot in another scheme at a higher price. This was not agreeable to the petitioner. Money deposited by the petitioner was therefore returned on 27.9.1996.
3. Complaining deficiency in service for not being paid interest for the money kept by respondent-opposite party, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum. It was allowed. It was directed that interest @ 15% per annum shall be paid to the petitioner for a period of 1-1/2 years. One month's time was granted to the respondent to make the payment. This order of the District Forum, in our view, was fully justified in the circumstances of the case.
4. However, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission challenging the this order on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum Plea of the petitioner that appeal was barred by limitation was, however, negatived. State Commission held that the District Forum at Sonebhadhra has no territorial jurisdiction, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
5. In our view, State Commissioner was not right in allowing the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Order of the District Forum shows that no such plea was taken before the District Forum. In any case, when the facts are clear and the amount had been kept by the respondent for 1-1/2 years for no fault of the petitioner, instead of requiring the respondent-GDA to make the payment as directed the District Forum, State Commission unnecessarily intervened in the matter which was not reburied. There was no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the District Forum. In consumer dispute it is not required to be too technical in the matter. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and that of District Forum is restored. Petitioner shall be entitled to cost which we assess at Rs. 1,000/-.