MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MANJU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 1/5/2012 in Appeal No. 773 of 2005 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the 'State Commission') upholding order dtd. 23/9/2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut in Consumer Case no. 518 of 2002 (in short, the 'District Forum').

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, as stated by the petitioner, which is an Urban Development Authority, are that on 12/7/1988 it had allotted plot no. 4/22 ad measuring 300 sq meters to the respondent under the Rakhshapuram Housing Scheme through draw of lottery. On 11/1/1991, after adjustment of registration and allotment charges, the respondent was asked to pay the balance amount in 8 half yearly installments for the plot allotted to her @ Rs.400.00 per sq. m. After completion of the work, petitioner informed respondent vide letters dtd. 25/6/1993, 8/9/1994, 18/1/1995 and on 25/8/1993 to take possession of the plot which the respondent failed to do. Therefore, on 16/12/1996 the petitioner cancelled the allotment by way of a registered letter. The respondent applied for refund along with affidavit and other original papers on 9/8/2002. Thereafter, the respondent approached the District Forum seeking a direction to allot a plot or in lieu any other plot in another scheme on the same terms and conditions along with compensation. The petitioner sent a cheque for Rs.52,258.00 on 28/8/2002 which was not accepted by the respondent. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dtd. 11/4/2005 and ordered refund with compensation and cost since it was reported that no plots were available against which the petitioner filed an appeal (No. 773/2005) before the State Commission. The respondent filed a cross appeal (No. 232/2006). Both appeals were disposed of by a common order dtd. 1/5/2012 whereby the petitioner was ordered to allot a plot of 350 sq m either in the original scheme or any other scheme within 2 months on the then prevailing rates after accounting for the amount already deposited by the respondent. The instant revision petition has impugned this order.

(3.) The District Forum in its order had held that: