National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Nirankari Industries vs Noida Industrial Development ... on 12 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1506 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 16/03/2015 in Appeal No. 1583/2002 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. M/S. NIRANKARI INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS OWNER JAGMOHAN TALWAR, S/O LATE R.C TALWAR, R/O B-123,SECTOR-14 NOIDA U.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SECTOR-6, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, NOIDA U.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Salil Paul, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Yadav & Mr. Usman Khan, Advocates Dated : 12 May 2016 ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1583 of 2015 - Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. M/s. Nirankari Industries (Regd.) by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner is an Industrial Unit situated in Noida, which had applied in 1980 to OP/respondent authorities for allotment of house under housing scheme for Low Income Group houses and had deposited the prescribed registration amount. Under the said housing scheme, houses had to be allotted on instalments to industrialists operating in Noida under reserve quota. Under the said scheme, the opposite party conducted a lottery in which the complainant was allotted a house. In accordance therewith, the complainant was informed by the opposite party about the reserve/allotted house under the LIG scheme. However, subsequently, and inspite of repeated contact, neither further action was taken in respect of the allotment nor was possession given of the house. As per the complainant, he was informed upon enquiry that his allotment has been cancelled because on inspection the complainant Industrial Unit was not found to be functional. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant's Industrial Unit M/s. Nirankari Industry had been issued a reservation letter dated 8.5.1981 under reservation quota, and the complainant was asked to furnish proof of the functionality of the Unit. As per the opposite party, a committee constituted for examination of such matters did not find the complainant's unit as eligible for allotment. Therefore, his application was rejected and information was given on 27.6.1985. The opposite Party has also stated that the complainant's application was rejected in lieu of non-fulfilment of eligibility and the reservation matter which was previously issued subject to terms was also revoked. It was further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to provide house at previously reserved cost and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proving that complainant was owning and running industry and no condition in the brochure that units should be functional, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that complaint is barred by limitation and order passed by learned State Commission on merits is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is not disputed that complainant's unit was registered as a small scale industrial unit and as per certificate issued by Directorate of Industries, date of commencement of production was 1.1.1978. It is also not disputed that OP floated a scheme for allotment of houses and complainant applied for LIG house and a draw of lots held on 12.1.1989 and he was held successful. By allotment letter dated 8.5.1981 subject to depositing Rs.1950/- house was allotted and complainant deposited aforesaid amount within prescribed time.
6. Perusal of record further reveals that OP enquired about complainant's unit and by letter dated 27.6.1985, allotment of complainant's house was rejected on the basis of report of enquiry committee. Clause 13 of brochure runs as under:
"13. Where the applicant furnishes incorrect entries in the application form or such particulars as he cannot be reasonably expected to believe to be true and upon the basis of such entries or particulars allotment of the house is made to him, the Authority will have the right to cancel the allotment and in the event of the allotment being cancelled the entire amount deposited by the applicant till that time stand forfeited to the Authority".
This clause authorizes OP to make enquiry and if particulars are not found correct, OP had right to cancel the allotment. Learned State Commission after referring documentary evidence rightly arrived to the conclusion that complainant was not engaged in business and only his unit was having registration number. Perusal of Tax Assessment order for the year 1979-80 reveals that in that period no purchases have been done by complainant and he was having stock of only 3580 empty jute bags valuing Rs.3580/- which were sold for Rs.1790/- on 8.12.1980 and his closing stock was zero. Perusal of Tax Assessment order dated 29.7.1981 to 26.12.1981 reveals that there was no sales and no stock with the complainant firm during this period. Perusal of electricity bills also reveals that there was no consumption of electricity and on 11.2.1981, his connection was disconnected. In such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that complainant was not engaged in running any industrial unit and OP has not committed any deficiency in rejecting allotment issued in favour of the complainant.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and specific plea was taken by respondent in written statement, but District forum did not consider that aspect at all. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was regularly writing letters from 14.1.1985 to 25.6.1989, but he has not placed those letters on record. In written submissions he has mentioned aforesaid letters as Annexure 5 to Annexure 9, but they have not been filed even along with written submissions. In such circumstances, except letter dated 14.1.1985, it cannot be presumed that other letters were written by petitioner to respondent. For the sake of arguments even if it is presumed that petitioner wrote aforesaid letters to respondent, limitation does not extend. Petitioner in his letter dated 14.1.1985 admitted that he came to know that his allotment is being cancelled by respondent and respondent by letter dated 27.6.1985 cancelled allotment letter. Though, petitioner has denied receipt of this letter, but merely by denying receipt it does not stand proved that he has not received letter rather he was aware about cancellation, so, he wrote letter dated 14.1.1985 to respondent. Admittedly, complaint has been filed in the year 1994 whereas, complaint should have been filed within 2 years from cancellation of allotment letter and in such circumstances, complaint was barred by limitation. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2014) CPJ 655 (NC) - Karnataka Housing Board & Anr. Vs. D. Shantappa & Ors. in which it was held that if after allotment of house OP had demanded money regularly and complainant also deposited some money and still neither sites were allotted nor deposits were refunded cause of action continued. Aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the case in hand complainant was aware about cancellation of allotment letter in January, 1985 and OP issued cancellation letter dated 27.6.1985 and complaint was not filed within period of 2 years from receipt of cancellation letter, complaint is barred by limitation and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint which was barred by limitation and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal on facts.
8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER