GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. YOGENDRA PAL TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 16.7.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow partly allowing appeal against the order dated 26.5.2000 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner/opposite party to allot and hand over possession of a plot measuring 112 sq. mts. to the respondent/complainant. Respondent applied for allotment of a plot in Govindpuram Housing Scheme in the year 1988. Vide letter dated 5.7.1989 , the petitioner conveyed decision to reserve a plot measuruing 112 sq. mts. at a cost of Rs. 69,440/- to the respondent. According to brochure the possession of plot was to be given in the year 1990. Respondent deposited the entire sale consideration. On plot not being handed over, respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner. IN the written version plea taken by petitioner was that as no specific plot was allotted to respondent, the possession of plot could not be given to him and he was informed to collect the deposited amount with interest @ 5% p.a. District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date(s) of deposit(s), etc. Appeal against District Forum's order filed by the respondent was allowed by State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(2.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha for petitioner was that against District Forum's order dated 26.5.2000 the petitioner had also filed appeal which was dismissed by State Commission by the order dated 25.4.2001. Revision filed against State Commission's order was dismissed by this Commission at the stage of admission by the order dated 24.9.2001. In SLP filed against this Commission's order, notice has been issued to the respondent and order for award of interest in excess of 12% has been stayed. According to Mr. Kulshreshtha, in view of State Commission's order dated 25.4.2001, order under challenge insofar as it relates to allotting and handing over a plot measuring 112 sq. mts. to the respondent, has to be set aside. Copy of said order dated 25.4.2001 is placed at pages 25-34 while that of dated 24.9.2001 in Revision Petition No. 1544/2001 at page 36. As may be seen from the order dated 25.4.2001 the District Forum's order dated 26.5.2000 was affirmed on merits after raising presumption of service of the notice sent by registered post to the respondent. Obviously, there are two contradictory orders - one passed on 25.4.2001 and another on 16.7.2002 by the State Commission. It seems that order dated 25.4.2001 was not brought to the notice of State Commission while passing the order dated 16.7.2002. We are of the view that in view of order dated 25.4.2001 which was passed much prior in time compared to the order dated 16.7.2002, the later order deserves to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, while accepting revision the order dated 16.7.2002 is set aside and District Forum's order dated 26.5.2004 which was affirmed by State Commission by the order dated 25.4.2001 is maintained. No order as to the cost. Revision Petition disposed of.