NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RACHNA SAJWAN

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. 9/11/2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1886 of 2011 in which order dtd. 20/8/2011 of Gautam Budh Nagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 396 of 2007 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 9/11/2021 of the State Commission.

(2.) While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant in the said FA No. 1886 of 2011 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC no. 396 of 2007. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 12/5/2022.

(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 flat under the residential scheme of the OP by depositing Rs.85,000.00 as registration amount and chose to pay the cost of the house in half-yearly installments. Letter of allotment dtd. 16/1/2007 was received by the complainant on 14/2/2007 and by means of aforesaid letter, the complainant was ordered to deposit the entire money as single lump sum payment. Complainant tried to take loan but could not succeed. The Complainant requested the OP on 13/3/2007 to return the registration amount but OP did not take any action and registration amount was forfeited. According to complainant, the allotment letter was intentionally sent to her with considerable delay and payment method was arbitrarily changed to single lump sum payment instead of half yearly installments. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and the District Forum vide order dtd. 20/8/2011 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the Complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dtd. 9/11/2021 allowed the complaint. Hence, the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.