National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Meerut Development Authority vs Smt. Manju Gupta on 9 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No.2779 OF 2012 (Against order dated 01.05.2012 in First Appeal No. 773 of 2005 and 232 of 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh) Meerut Development Authority Through its Secretary, Meerut (U.P.) ..Petitioner Versus Smt. Manju Gupta, W/o Shri Raj Kumar Gupta r/o 449, Bakri Mohalla, Lal Kurti, Meerut Cantt. (U.P.) .... Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate with Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate Pronounced on: 9th May,2014 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short, Act)against impugned order dated 1.5.2012 passed in (Appeal Nos.773 of 2005 and 232 of 2006), by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh(for short, State Commission).
2. Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut (for short,District Forum) on the allegations that he submitted an application to the petitioner for registration of plot in Higher Income Group in the Housing Scheme of Petitioner. Respondent was allotted plot No.04/22, under Rakshapuram Housing Scheme through lottery draw held on 12.7.1988. The estimated price of the said plot of 300 sq. meters was Rs.1,05,000/- at the rate of Rs.350 per sq. meter, out of which respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- at the time of registration and Rs.25,000/-at the time of allotment.
Balance amount had to be paid in eight half yearly installments. Respondent in all had deposited a sum of Rs.61,400/-.After deposit of the aforesaid amount, petitioner cancelled the allotted plot without issuing any notice to the respondent and without undertaking the development work on the plot. It is further stated that respondent is ready to pay interest on the outstanding amount but no satisfactory reply was received from the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner has made allotment to the people of the same category after having recovered interest on the outstanding amounts but is adopting biased policy against the respondent. The respondent is entitled to get her own plot through allotment.
3. Accordingly, respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the petitioner to allot a plot of land to the respondent. In case, the plot is not available under the Scheme, then any other plot may be allotted in any other scheme on the same terms and conditions. Further, petitioner be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation. In the alternative, if plot of land cannot be made available, then amount deposited by her be refunded along with interest @24 p.a. with sum of Rs.50,000/-as compensation.
4. In its written statement, petitioner took the plea that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the respondent. It is stated that final rate of the plot had been determined at Rs.400/- per sq. meter and intimation of which was sent to the respondent, vide letter no.2339 dated 25.08.1993. After adjustment of the registration and allotment amount, respondent was supposed to pay residual amount in eight half yearly installments about which respondent had been informed, vide letter no.2978 dated 11.01.1991 but respondent did not make the payment in time. It is further stated that it informed the respondent, vide letter no.8184 dated 25.6.2003 and letter no.504411 dated 09.09.1994 and letter no. 594111 dated 18.01.1995, through registered post for taking over possession of plot of land. However, respondent did not deposit the installments nor took over possession of plot no.4/22.The respondent stopped making payment of installments on her own, on which petitioner informed the respondent again and again for taking over possession but she did not take the possession. Thereafter, petitioner cancelled the allotment in the absence of payment of amount due. Information of the same was sent to respondent through registered letter no.8041 dated 16.12.1996.
5. Lastly, it is stated that on 09.08.2002 respondent submitted application for refund, affidavit and all original documents and sought the refund of her deposited amount. Accordingly, vide letter dated 04.10.2002, a cheque no.438184 dated 04.10.2002 for Rs.52,258/- was sent. The respondent after getting refund of her deposited amount, filed the complaint case with wrong and false submissions with intention to harass the petitioner. As such, the complainant is liable to be rejected.
6. The District Forum, vide order dated 11.4.2005, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to;
refund the amount deposited by the complainant i.e.Rs.61,400/- with interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum from the dates of deposits and to pay a sum of Rs.Five Thousand as cost of complaint and Rs.Ten Thousand be paid as compensation.
7. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. However, appeal was rejected vide the impugned order.
8. Hence, this revision petition.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
10. It has been contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent had concealed the material facts about getting of the refund from the petitioner, from all the Consumer Fora. Since, amount has already been refunded to the respondent, the consumer complaint of the respondent under these circumstances is not maintainable.
11. On the other hand, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent had asked for the refund of the amount and which she got.
12. It is manifestly clear from the record that respondent herself had applied for the refund of the amount. In pursuance thereof, she had received a cheque of Rs.52,258/- from the petitioner. Moreover, the cheque had already been encashed by the respondent more than 12 years ago. However, respondent for reasons best known to her had concealed all the material facts from all the Consumer Fora. Once respondent had claimed the refund amount, then she cease to be a Consumer.
13. It is well settled that any litigant who approaches any judicial forum with un-clean hands and conceal the material facts, is not entitled to any relief in equity. Under these circumstances, since respondent had concealed the material and relevant facts, we have no option but to allow the present petition. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, we allow the present revision petition with cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only).
14. Respondent is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today.
15. In case, respondent fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then she shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
16. List for compliance on 04.07.2014.
.J (V.B.GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER SSB