GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAMAL KUMAR GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The complaint was allowed to an extent. On an appeal filed by the respondent/complainant before the State Commission, it allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant got reservation of one house for EWS under EWS Housing Scheme Vijay Nagar on 16.1.1989. On 17.7.1990 the complainant was informed that it is not possible to allot the reserved house to him for administrative reasons. On request for allotment of an alternative house, the complainant was allotted House No. F-105 under Nand Nikunj Housing Scheme on 20.12.1990, but conditions were changed. Cost of the house was increased to Rs. 40,250/- from 23,000/-, number of instalments to pay the amount was reduced to 20 from 40 and rate of interest on the amounts payable was increased to 12.5% from 8%. It is in these circumstances that a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint only to the extent that complainant would be entitled to interest @ 7% on the deposited amount from 17.6.1995 i.e. from the date possession was taken along with cost of Rs. 500/-. Not being satisfied with the reliefs granted, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission who after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to charge from the complainant the original price of the house on the same terms and conditions. If excess amount was found to be deposited, then the same was to be refunded by the petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a. Cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) On the date fixed for hearing, petitioner was absent inspite of notice, respondent was present in person, hence the petition was dismissed in default on 10.5.2002. On an application filed by the petitioner for restoration, case was restored and next date of hearing i.e. 18.3.2003 was fixed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Again he was absent on account of personal difficulty. Respondent is present in person. We see no reason to accept any unsubstantiated/unsupported letter to adjourn the case on personal difficulty and go on to decide the case on the basis of material on record.