GOVERNMENT M P Vs. CHANDRAHAS DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the opposite party which is petitioner before us. It is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing its appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum.

(2.) Complaint filed by the complainant-respondent before the District Forum. He alleged that in 1991 petitioner had formulated a housing scheme for the Government and local bodies employees known as 'Kelo Vihar Yojna'. Complainant was a Government employee and was eligible for allotment. He applied for 2400 sq. ft. plot in Parijat locality and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,400/- as registration fee. He was issued allotment letter on 29.7.1991 allotting plot No. 116 in Parijat locality. By letter dated 12.12.1991 issued by the Superintendent of the office of District and Sessions Judge, Raigarh, complainant was informed that he had to fill up an option form and to pay balance amount accordingly. Complainant paid in lump sum the entire balance amount of the cost of the plot amounting to Rs. 21,600/-. His complaint was that in spite of his making all the payments he had not been delivered possession of the plot. These allegations were not denied by the petitioner-oposite party except that complainant had drawn advance from his provident fund. It is also stated that the scheme was Cormulated by the then Collector and 'Adhikar Patra' was issued but the possession of the plot could not be given for want of sanction of allotment of land by the Government and the proceedings of allotment were in progress. Considering all these circumstances, District Forum directed the petitioner to provide a plot of land measuring 2400 sq. ft. to the complainant under the scheme and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. Rs. 750/- was also awarded as costs. District Forum did not award any interest on the amount kept by the petitioner all this period.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner-opposite party went in appeal before the State Commission. Various objections were raised for non-joining of Municipal Committee, Raigarh and the Kelo Vihar Government Servants House Building Society as parties to the complaint. Objection to the jurisdiction of the District Forum was also raised. All these objections were considered and rejected by the State Commission. Reference was made to the complaint where complainant had given all the facts regarding allotment of the plot to him and his payment of the amount which had not been denied in the written version filed by the petitioner-opposite party. In our view, State Commission rightly dismissed the appeal. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.