National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Km. Ponnamma K.K. vs Lucknow Development Authority on 20 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2470 of 2008 (From the order dated 1.2.2008 in Appeal No.2934/1998 of U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow) Km. Ponnamma K.K., Daughter of Sri Krishnan C/o Senor Matron K.G.M.U. Hospital Chowk, Lucknow Petitioner/Complainant Versus Lucknow Development Authority Pradhikaran Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow 226 010 Respondent/ Opp. Party
BEFORE HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR.
B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Syed, Advocate Mr. Shuaib-Uddin, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 20th May, 2013 O R D E R PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 1.2.2008 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 2934 of 1998 LDA Vs. Km. Ponnamma K.K. by which, while disposing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted Plot No. 3/157 in a draw dated 31.12.1984 at the estimated cost of Rs.46,501/- by OP/Respondent. Complainant earlier deposited Rs.12,100/- and deposited Rs.34,401/- on 28.5.1985 instead of 31.3.1985. She was asked to deposit money on different dates in different heads and she deposited some amount according to Rules of L.D.A. Complainant was entitled to get 4% p.a. interest on money deposited, but as interest has not been paid to her and OP was delaying registration, complainant filed complaint with a prayer that OP may be directed to get sale deed registered. OP filed written statement and submitted that complainant is required to deposit interest as per rules and he has not supplied stamp papers; hence, registration could not be done and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to return excess interest received from complainant along with 18% p.a. interest and further directed OP to inform complainant, as to the value of the stamp papers to be deposited and other formalities required to be completed for registration of sale deed. Appeal filed by the OP/respondent was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and order of District forum was modified against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned State Commission has observed in impugned order that complainant has not deposited freehold charges, sewer charges, etc. as per rules and has not given stamp papers and in such circumstances, it would not be possible to handover possession of the plot after carrying out registration.
5. During course of arguments, both the parties apprised that sale deed of plot measuring 348 sq. mt. has been executed by respondent in favour of petitioner on 10.10.2002, whereas learned State Commission has observed in its order dated 1.2.2008 that complainant has neither deposited money nor supplied stamp papers for registration, which is apparently against the record. Perusal of impugned order does not reveal what modification has been made in the order passed by District forum.
6. During course of arguments, it was observed that allotment letter does not contain area of the plot and now dispute between the parties is in respect of excess area of the plot being the corner plot. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner does not want to have excess area of land and wants to take possession of the land comprising sale deed, whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner is bound to make payment of excess area as per demand notice. These facts are not part of complaint or written statement; hence, cannot be decided in this revision petition.
7. As impugned order is contrary to facts admitted by the parties regarding payment towards freehold charges, sewer charges and supply of stamp paper and registration of the sale deed, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand to the State Commission for deciding it afresh after considering admitted facts.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 1.2.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 2934/1998
- LDA Vs. Km. Ponnamma K.K. is set aside and matter is remanded to the learned State Commission to decide it afresh preferably within 3 months after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission, U.P. on 8th July, 2013.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k