LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SALEEM AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 26.9.2011, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') in appeal No. 2331/ 2001,Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as LDA) v. Saleem Ahmed, vide which, the said appeal against the order dated 19.8.2002, passed by the District Forum, Lucknow in complaint No. 1340/2000, allowing the said complaint, was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was maintained.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Saleem Ahmed, Advocate deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000 with the petitioner LDA on 19.11.1982 as registration amount for booking a plot in their Gomati Nagar Housing Scheme. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant waited for a long time and also sent many letters to the petitioner/OP, but without any result. He approached the office of the OP in March 1999, when he came to know that plot No. 5/65, Vinay Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow had been allotted to him, but the said allotment was cancelled on the ground of non-

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 19.8.2002concludedthatthepetitioner/OPhad failed to prove that they had sent any information to the complainant about the cancellation of the plot. They accordingly directed the OP to allot a plot in any Khand of Gomati Nagar to the complainant at the same old rate at which plot No. 5/65, Vinay Khand, Gomati Nagar was allotted and also to pay to him a sum of Rs. 2,000 for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as costof litigation. The State Commission, during hearing in appeal before them, also concluded that the OP had not been able to prove that the notice of cancellation or the letter of cancellation was ever served upon the complainant They accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000 against the order of the District Forum. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made.