LAWS(NCD)-2024-8-36

VICE CHAIRMAN, LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ALOK ARIVASTAVA

Decided On August 02, 2024
Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority Appellant
V/S
Alok Arivastava Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the order dtd. 28/12/2020 in Consumer Case no. 165 of 2000 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') holding that there are reasonable and sufficient grounds to establish deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and therefore, directing payment of Rs.6,82,500.00 with 10% interest from the date of filing till realisation as compensation for construction, Rs.10.00 lakhs for harassment and mental agony within 3 months or with 10% interest till payment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) This order will also dispose of FA no. 654 of 2021 arising from the order of the State Commission in RA no. 05 of 2021 by which the RA had been allowed with regard to return of the deposited money through payment by cheque. For the sake of convenience FA no. 618 of 2021 is taken as the lead case.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant, which is a Development Authority engaged in the development of housing projects on behalf of the Government of UP had, in a scheme announced by it in 1990, allotted an MIG Duplex House no. 5/1184, Viram Khand-5, Gomti Nagar Scheme, Phase I, Lucknow to the respondent vide allotment letter dtd. 20/9/1991 after receiving Rs.20,000.00 on 8/10/1990 towards registration and another amount of Rs.20,000.00 on 27/4/1991 towards allotment as per demand letter dtd. 4/2/1991. The consideration was Rs.2,55,000.00 to be paid in instalments. On 3/12/1992, the appellant conveyed by letter that the project was near completion and the final cost was conveyed as Rs.3,76,800.00. An amount of Rs.81,800.00 was accordingly paid by the respondent to the appellant over and above the cost of Rs.2,55,000..00 However, the said house was not constructed and handed over on purported grounds of negligence by the contractor and instead the appellant sought to refund the amount of Rs.2,77,564.00 by cheque which was refused by the respondent.