FARHAT SIDDIQUI Vs. ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 16/10/2019 of the U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'State Commission') dismissing First Appeal No. 704 of 2012 filed against order dtd. 17/3/2012 in complaint no. 438 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Allahabad (in short, 'District Forum').

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had been allotted house no MIG 24, Kasari Masari, Phase 2, Allahabad on 21/8/2007. Her contention is that on 15/7/2006 the respondent had brought out an advertisement offering the houses at a cost of Rs.6,00,000.00 requiring applicants to register for the same after depositing 10% of the cost. The petitioner had registered on 13/8/2007 by depositing Rs.60,000.00. Accordingly, she contends that she was eligible for the allotment of the said house for Rs.6,00,000.00. However, the respondent has charged her a price of Rs.7,67,000.00. She contends that two other allottees have been allotted houses in MIG 6 and MIG 4 at a lower rate of Rs.6,39,000.00. She submits that the District Forum and the State Commission have erred in rejecting her complaint and appeal respectively. It is also her contention that while the District Forum allowed the complaints of the other two allottees and directed the respondent to re-fix the price, her complaint was wrongly disallowed. She has therefore filed this petition seeking setting aside of the State Commission's order.

(3.) The respondent has contended the Allahabad Development Authority (now Prayagraj Development Authority) had issued two advertisements for the allotment of houses built by it on 15/7/2006 and 21/7/2008. It is admitted that while it is true that the petitioner applied for the MIG house by depositing Rs.60,000.00, the allotment was made to her not as per the advertisement dtd. 15/7/2006 but rather as per advertisement dtd. 21/7/2008. As the registration dtd. 13/8/2007 fell within the purview of the second advertisement for which the rates were different, the house was priced at Rs.7,67,000.00, the allotment being of the financial year 2007-2008 necessitating a different (higher) rate. It is submitted that the petitioner's contention that there were two other cases which were remanded by the District Forum to the respondent to re-fix the price of the houses allotted is not valid since these also related to their applications under the second advertisement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged.