DINESH TIWARI Vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint has been filed under Sec.17 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) praying for relief of award of Rs.8,94,324.30 towards compensation in lieu of deposited amount, Rs.7,185/- towards enhancement charges for building plan, a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- towards difference in the cost of construction, and a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- for mental agony and physical pain caused by the opposite party. The complaint was filed with the averment that the opposite party, Kanpur Development Authority, has not handed over the possession of plot No.813, 'q' Block, Kakadeo Scheme 1, Sharda Nagar, Kanpur for the last 11 years which caused financial hardship and mental agony as also loss of interest over the amount deposited.

(2.) It is averred that in accordance with the public notice dated 22.3.1989, aforesaid plot was auctioned on 29.3.1989 and the complainant was the higher bidder. He had deposited one-fourth of the amount of the total sale price. It has also been averred that he was ready to make the full payment and also requested the K. D. A. to intimate him the other charges payable before the registration of the lease deed of the plot. Subsequently intimation was made for depositing the sum and the same was done. Consequently the sale deed was registered on 6.4.1993 after lapse of more than 11 months. Building construction over the plot in question was also sanctioned by the K. D. A. but before that it was alleged that prior to the registration of the sale deed a Civil Suit No.803/1991, Sunil Yadav V/s. Kanpur Development Authority, challenging the ownership of the plot and seeking regularisation of the same in the name of the plaintiff was filed in the Court of ACCM (IV), Kanpur. It was averred that because of the apathy shown by the K. D. A. certain requisite slips were not taken in the regular suit proceedings and then the complainant referred the matter to the Lok Ayukt and in consonance thereof alternative plots were offered but the same was not acceptable. Ultimately vide letter dated 28.9.1997, it has been averred, that the complainant proposed an alternative plot in the scheme of C-1, Indira Nagar, 'k' Block, Kidwai Nagar, but the K. D. A. did not allot the same. It was further averred that the complainant was deprived of the benefits and hence the complaint was filed.

(3.) In the written statement, besides raising legal pleas, it was averred that in view of the judgment dated 3.2.1999 in Civil Suit No.830/1991, the possession of Sri Sunil Yadav over the alleged plot could not be disturbed and the opposite party, K. D. A. is left with no option but to refund the entire amount deposited with interest. It was so intimated but the same was not accepted and the demand was continuously made by the complainant for possession of plot No.813, Block 'q', Kakadeo Scheme I. Even direction was made for refund of the deposited amount along with interest as per the Board's decision but the same was not accepted. Consequently the plea was that the complaint is not maintainable.