ANIL KUMAR Vs. BULANDSHAHAR KHURJA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 03.02.2010 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeals no. 1388 of 2002 (filed by Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority - in short, 'the BKDA') and 1125 of 2008 (filed by the petitioner herein - hereafter, 'the complainant'). By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by BKDA, dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant and imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/ - on the complainant.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the BKDA floated a housing scheme including a scheme for the economically weaker sections (EWS) of the society called the Yamunapuram Scheme under which the complainant, a person belonging to the EWS, registered himself by paying the registration fee of Rs.1,510/ -. By letter dated 31.08.1991, the BKDA informed the complainant that a housing unit had been reserved/allotted for/to him under the EWS housing scheme and asked him to pay Rs.3,500/ - by 10.10.1991. The complainant deposited this amount also by the due date. Thereafter, by its letter dated 11.06.1993, the BKDA asked the complainant to deposit Rs.5,000/ - by 25.07.1993 before commencing the process of allotting/handing over possession of the housing unit. This letter also intimated that after this lumpsum payment, the complainant shall have to pay 30 half -yearly equated instalments of Rs.1,553/ - each on 25th September and 5th March, beginning with the financial year 1993 -1994. It appears that by its letter dated 27.10.1993, the BKDA allotted house no. C -182 to the complainant.

(3.) (i) The complainant filed his complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bulandshahar (in short, 'the District Forum') in July 1993 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the BKDA on the ground that it had increased the price of the housing unit arbitrarily much in excess of price indicated in its brochure inviting applications for the Yamunapuram Housing Scheme. The BKDA contested the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that it had the necessary authority under the relevant rules governing houses constructed under its housing schemes to enhance the price of its housing units and the allottees of such housing units were bound to comply with the said provisions. (ii) On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the District Forum, by its order dated 06.05.2002, held the BKDA guilty of deficiency in service in that the latter was unable to establish by acceptable evidence the enhancement in the price of the flat allotted to the complainant and directed it to hand over possession of house no. C -182 within 60 days from the date of the order on payment of the balance amount in instalments in the same manner as indicated at the time of making reservation in favour of the complainant. In addition, BKDA was directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/ - within the same period, failing which it was liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till realisation.