GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. REDHEY SHYAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent, as detailed above, under Sec. 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dtd. 1/9/2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No.2292 of 2008 in which order dated 0711.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 531 of 2002 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 1/9/2021 of the State Commission.

(2.) While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 2292 of 2008 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioners were OPs and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC no. 531 of 2002. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 21/12/2021. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 21/1/2022 and 11/2/2022 respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that Complainant applied for a house in Indirapuram Housing Scheme 1992 of the OPs (scheme Code 615 Aakansha-II) costing Rs.4,00,000.00 and in the said scheme, the OP sent a reservation letter and payment schedule to the complainant on 16/4/1992 under which a house was reserved for the Complainant. The Complainant deposited the entire cost of the house with the OP as per the payment schedule. The cost demanded by the OP before delivery of possession was deposited by the complainant with the OP. The OP had mentioned in their brochure and advertisement of the scheme that possession of a fully developed house will be delivered within two years. However, the OP failed to give the possession of fully developed house. The Complainant asked for refund of money with interest since house was semi-constructed wherein development work was not completed. However, the OP assured the complainant that a fully developed house in some other scheme will be given to him under 'Tatkaal Yojna'. As complainant was in urgent need of the house, he promptly gave consent for another house. The OP reserved a house for the complainant in Indirapuram Housing Scheme 604 and letter to this effect was sent to the complainant on 14/3/1994. OP again sent a letter to complainant on 30/4/1994 vid which HIG House No. 148A, Gyan Khand-IV ( Double Storey ) was allotted in his favour and cost of the said house was communicated to the complainant to be Rs.4,96,000.00 and Complainant was asked to pay the balance payment in three instalments. The complainant deposited the balance amount with the OP in time. At the time of allotment of aforesaid house, the OP had promised that possession of house will be delivered soon as it is a fully developed house. Despite paying the entire cost of the house, the OP did not deliver the possession of the house to complainant. The Complainant wrote a letter to the OP and also made oral requests for delivery of possession. The OP informed the complainant that complainant should take the possession of the house as all facilities were available in the house. Complainant alleged that aforesaid house was incomplete and not in habitable condition as there was no electricity, water, road and sewer connection. The OP gave the assurance that complainant should take the possession of the house in existing condition and they will remove all the deficiencies. After taking possession of the aforesaid HIG house, complainant found that there were number of deficiencies and house was not in a habitable condition like all the doors, frames, windows were totally damaged, there was no electricity fitting, wall plaster was in dilapidating condition, there was not sanitary fitting, no draining system, no system for drinking water etc. The complainant informed the OP about the same but in vain. Though the complainant had taken possession of the house on 26/3/1997 but he was informed by the OP on 1/11/1999 i.e. after three years of delivery of possession that cost of aforesaid house had been increased from Rs.4,96,200.00 to Rs.6,28,360.00 and complainant should execute registry of the property after depositing Rs.1,32,160.00 and Rs.9441.00 as lease rent before 15/11/1999. The Complainant raised objection about illegally increasing the cost of the house as possession had been given to him after he had paid its full cost. The complainant also requested the OP to decrease the cost of house but OP did not decrease the cost. The OP sent a notice dtd. 6/6/2002 to the complainant by which he was asked to deposit Rs.2,15,610.00 failing which the allotment will be cancelled. Being aggrieved of the letter no. 773 dtd. 1/11/99 and letter no. 1694 dtd. 6/6/2002 sent by the OP, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum.