National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Raj Krishna Mishra vs U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. on 10 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1262 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 28/12/2011 in Appeal No. 2258/2009 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. RAJ KRISHNA MISHRA Mahatama Gandhi Marg Lucknow U.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ANR. At Eram School,Indiranagar Premises Lucknow U.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent :
Dated : 10 Feb 2015 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "the State Commission) dated 28.12.2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the first appeal No.2258/2009 preferred by the Complainant/Petitioner against the order of the District Forum.
2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this Revision Petition are that the Petitioner applied for allotment of HIG house with the Respondent/Parishad. Pursuant to the application, House No.A-4-841, Indra Nagar, Lucknow was allotted to the Complainant on payment of consideration amount on instalment basis. After the allotment, on the request of the Complainant to transfer the allotment in favour of his mother Smt. K.K. Misra, hire purchase agreement dated 8.6.1983 was executed in favour of the mother of the Complainant. Subsequently, the said house was transferred in the name of Smt. Anita Wadhwa, who claimed herself to be daughter of Smt. K.K. Misra. According to the Complainant, Smt. Anita Wadhwa is an imposter and she is not daughter of Smt. K.K. Misra and she had obtained the transfer of the house in her name fraudulently. It is alleged that the Complainant on coming to know about the said illegal transfer, approached the Respondent/Authority seeking cancellation of transfer of house in the name of Smt. Anita Wadhwa, but in vain. Claiming this to be a deficiency in service, the Complainant filed a consumer co plaint seeking following reliefs:-
"1. That by means of order and directions against opposite parties no.1 & 2 suitable instructions may kindly be issued that alternative accommodation of the same type, size and location be arranged, provided, borne and paid at the earliest from the date of depriving the legally allotted HIG House No.A-841.
2. That by means of order and directions against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to also pay interest on the amounts deposited for the House No.A-841, (HIG), Indira Nagar.
3. That by means of order and directions suitable instructions may kindly be given to the Opposite Party 1&2 to also pay damages for loss, inconvenience mental shock, disruption of activities, emotional breakdown, harassment and running around expenses.
4. That by means of order and directions against parties no1&2 suitable instructions may kindly be issued to Pay Compensation at the present market rate of the Property including additions and alternation real and planned.
5. Any other relief which the forum deems fit in favour of complainant may kindly be awarded."
3. The Respondent/Opposite party resisted the complaint. It was admitted in the written statement that housing in question was allotted to the Complainant, but it was later on transferred in the name of the mother of the Complainant on his request and a hire purchase agreement in favour of mother of the Complainant was executed. According to the Opposite Party, the house was subsequently transferred in the name of Smt. Anita Wadhwa on the requisition of Smt. K.K. Misra, the allottee and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties, vide its order dated 3.12.2009 dismissed the complaint.
5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner approached the State Commission in Appeal and the State Commission dismissed the Appeal. Main reason for dismissal of Appeal was that admittedly, the Complainant had got transferred his allotment in favour of his mother and with the transfer he seized to be a consumer of the Respondent Parishad. We do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the State Commission. Otherwise also, the entire thrust of the consumer complaint is on cancellation of transfer of allotment in favour of Smt. Anita Wadhwa. She therefore, is a necessary party because her right was to be under cloud in the complaint. She was not made party in the complaint. On this count also the complaint deserves dismissal due to non-joinder of a necessary party.
6. In view of the circumstances discussed above, we do not find merit in the Revision Petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... VINAY KUMAR MEMBER