GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KUSHAGRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has filed the present Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the Impugned Order dtd. 17/4/2008 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. 249/SC/2003, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Authority) against the Order dtd. 27/12/2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "District Forum") in Case No. 546 of 2002. By the said Order the District Forum while partly allowing the Complaint filed by Kushagra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant"), directed the Petitioner Authority to refund the Registration amount of Rs.40,000.00 deposited by the Complainant alongwith interest @15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment besides a sum of Rs.5,000.00 towards mental agony and costs of ?1,000/- within 30 days failing which Complainant would be entitled for interest @18% with effect from the date of default.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant applied for a residential Plot in "Swarn Nagari" Scheme floated by the Petitioner Authority by depositing Registration amount of Rs.40,000.00 on 21/3/1998. Before the draw of lots, the Petitioner Authority revised the cost of plot from Rs.16,00.00 to Rs.2400.00 per sq. mtr. and asked the consent of the Complainant vide letter dtd. 15/6/1998. The Complainant gave his consent. The Complainant was allotted a plot of 200 sq. mts. and he was directed to deposit Rs.1,84,000.00 by 1/1/1999 and Rs.3,36,000.00 by 24/12/2000 in eight quarterly instalments of Rs.42,000.00 each. On calculation, the Complainant found that the final cost of the plot would be Rs.2995.85 ps. and not ?2400/- per sq. mt. The other point which was also creating tension to the Complainant was that if the lease was not executed by 31/12/2019, penalty upto ?18,000/- would be charged upto 30/9/2000. Ultimately, keeping in view his financial constraints, vide letter dtd. 15/12/1998 the Complainant requested the Petitioner Authority to refund the Registration money. The Complainant persuaded the matter with the Petitioner Authority vide letters dtd. 29/3/1999, 20/6/1999 and 25/8/1999 but without fruitful result. Vide letter dtd. 14/9/1999 the Petitioner Authority asked the Complainant to furnish postal proof of dispatch of letters regarding demanding of refund of Registration amount. The Complainant provided the copies of letters alongwith postal proof vide letter dtd. 1/5/2001. Instead of refunding the Registration amount, vide letter dtd. 10/10/2001, the Petitioner Authority informed the Complainant that the Plot No. D-109, which was allotted to him, has been cancelled and the amount paid towards registration Amount had been forfeited. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioner Authority, Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before District Forum seeking following directions to the Opposite Party to:-

(3.) Upon notice Complaint was contested by the Petitioner Authority by filing Written Statement. The Petitioner Authority submitted that the Complainant is not a "Consumer". The Complaint is time barred and the Complaint is not maintainable. It was contended that as per Clause A2 and B3 of the Brochure of the Scheme, the rates of the plots were tentative and the Petitioner Authority had reserved the right to revise the rate before allotment. All the Applicants including the Complainant were duly informed about the hike in price of plot and option was also given to them to get the refund of Registration money in case the revised rates were not acceptable to them. On the consent of the Complainant, Plot was allotted to the Complainant. Once the Complainant had accepted the revised rates, then he could not challenge the revised rate. It was also submitted that the rate of plot was ?2400/- per sq. mtr. and after adding lease rent, stamp duty and registration charges in this amount, the Complainant had calculated the rate as ?2995.85ps. which could not be counted as the price of the Plot. It was also contended that the Complainant failed to submit the postal proof of dispatch of letters by which he alleged to have requested for refund of Registration amount. If the proof of dispatch of the said letter was submitted his registration amount would have been refunded. The Opposite Party further submitted that as per Clause F-5 of the Brochure, in case failure to deposit the amount within stipulated period, the registration amount would be forfeited. The Petitioner Authority further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.