COMMISSIONER NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM BHILAI FORMERLY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SUPELA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai (formerly known as Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai), who was the sole opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (District Forum for short), against the order 12th of January, 2006 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (State Commission for short). Vide the impugned order the State Commission, while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam, modified the order of the District Forum directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.1,75,000/- being the market value of the plot in question and also imposed a cost of Rs.5000/- on them. Rest of the directions of the District Forum were maintained.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant, who was an employee of the Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP for short), had applied for a plot under housing scheme floated by BSP costing at Rs.3320/- during 1976 and also deposited 10% of the value i.e. Rs.332/-. The respondent-complainant alleges that no allotment, however, was made to him and before he could pay the remaining amount of Rs.3000/-, BSP transferred the scheme under an agreement to Special Area Development Authority (SADA), the present petitioner, now Nagar Palika Nigam. As per terms of the said agreement, petitioner/opposite party/Nigam was to allot the plots to the employees of BSP who had applied and deposited the premium amount under the scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam started allotting plots to the eligible employees of Bhilai Steel Plant but did not allot any plot to the respondent-complainant, resulting in some communications/ complaints to Bhilai Steel Plant as well as the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam by the respondent-complainant. Since plots were being allotted to similarly placed applicants the respondent/complainant in the year 1986 sent a letter along with cheque amounting to Rs.3000/- to the petitioner/opposite party for allotment of a plot but the said cheque was returned by them stating that there was no plot available at that time. On 30th September, 1986 the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam issued an advertisement in the newspaper stating that any person who has not been able to get the plot can get the same by a further deposit of Rs.500/- along with an affidavit and accordingly the respondent-complainant deposited the amount of Rs.500/- with the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam on 1st of October, 1986, but even thereafter he was not allotted a plot. Subsequently, on 13th of November, 1990, the respondent-complainant again supplied some information sought by the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam. On 17th of March, 1995 again the respondent-complainant reiterated his prayer for allotment of plot and sent a draft of remaining amount of Rs.2500/- to the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam but could not succeed in his attempt.

(3.) In this background, on 26th of August, 1998 the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for allotment of the plot at the original pre-determined price after adjusting the amounts already paid; direction to the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam to pay the differential construction cost of the plot between the original price and the present market value and to pay the differential rate of interest on House Building Advance between the earlier 4% interest and present 9-11%; direction to the petitioner/opposite party/Nigam to recoup the house rent allowance @ Rs.430/- per month and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unnecessarily harassing him for such a long period with cost.