BULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. JAGANNATH SINGH TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 3204 of 2013 has been filed against the impugned order dated 1.11.2012, passed in First Appeal No.1390 of 2002 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (short, "State Commission").

(2.) As per facts gleaned from the order of the District Forum, the respondent/complainant submitted his application for a MIG flat in the scheme of the petitioner/opposite party no.1 and deposited Rs.16,120/- as registration amount. The said amount was deposited on 29.5.1990. The petitioner vide their letter dated 16.3.1992 informed about the registration of the flat and directed to deposit Rs.16,100/- which the respondent deposited on 29.3.1992. Petitioner vide their letter dated 24.5.1993 asked the respondent to deposit Rs.32,200/- in one installment before giving the possession. The petitioner deposited the said amount on 24.6.1993 and petitioner vide their letter dated 31.1.1995 informed the respondent to take the possession of MIG flat by 28.10.1995. The cost of the flat as mentioned in brochure was Rs.1,61,000/- and Rs.32,200/- was to be deposited in three equal installments before taking the possession and rest of the amount was to be deposited in 9 years with 11% interest. But the petitioner violated the conditions of the brochure and vide their letter dated 24.5.1993 demanded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards the cost of flat by way of half yearly installment of Rs.22,850/-. To increase the amount like this is completely wrong. When the respondent inspected the said flat on 22.5.1995, he was surprised to see that the floor and the roof were incomplete, there was no electricity in the rooms, neither there was water supply nor there was any approach road. Meaning thereby, the flat was not worth living and the respondent felt that the petitioner has cheated him and violated the terms of the brochure in which the possession of the flat was promised in two years but in fact, even after 5 years the flat was not ready. Compelled by this, when the respondent asked for the return of his amount, the petitioner only returned Rs.60,395/- out of Rs.64,420/- after two years on 29.3.1997 without paying any interest on the said amount and thus, deducted Rs.4,000/- even from the principal amount.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the written statement in which it has been admitted that the respondent had deposited the said amount and also admitted the letter dated 31.1.1995, condition of brochure have also been admitted, letter dated 24.5.1993 have also been admitted. Notice of the respondent has also been admitted and it has also been admitted that a demand was made on the respondent for Rs.22,850/- per installment and it was also admitted that flat was allotted to the respondent and its information was sent to the respondent but the respondent demanded his money back and therefore, after deduction as per rules Rs.60,395/- were returned to him. Apart from this, he is not entitled to any other amount.