LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHYAM KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Shyam Kapoor, the respondent herein, preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Forum IInd, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), asserting that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the Lucknow Development Authority, i.e., the appellant herein, on 1.12.1982. The aforesaid deposit had been made for allotment of a 6,000 sq. ft. plot in the 'A' category under the Gomti Nagar Residential Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). It was alleged, that the Lucknow Development Authority had neither allotted any plot to the respondent-complainant, nor returned the deposit tendered by him. The appellant herein, however, issued a press notice in 1991 requiring persons similarly situated as the respondent-complainant, to deposit an additional amount by January 1992, so as to be eligible for consideration, for such allotment. On account of the fact, that the deposit of the differential amount was imperative for future consideration, the respondent-complainant deposited a further amount of Rs.15,000/- on 30.1.1992. Still, no plot was allotted to the respondent-complainant. On 30.10.1996, Shyam Kapoor, addressed a communication to the Lucknow Development Authority, requiring it to furnish him with details in the matter of allotment of plots. Since the Lucknow Development Authority did not respond to the aforesaid communication, Shyam Kapoor preferred the complaint referred to hereinabove.

(3.) In its defence, the appellant herein, while admitting the factual position expressed by Shyam Kapoor in his complaint, raised a number of legal/technical objections. The stand of the appellant so as to defeat the claim of the respondent-complainant included a plea, that the complaint was barred by time. It was also contended that the complainant was not a consumer, and as such, the District Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter. Besides the aforesaid, it was asserted by the appellant before the District Forum, that the respondent-complainant had changed his registration from the Scheme under which he had originally applied, and as such, his claim could not be considered on the basis of the original deposit made by him. The entitlement of the respondent complainant for allotment of a plot under the Scheme was also sought to be disputed on the ground that he was unsuccessful in obtaining a loan from a financial institution.