GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2734 of 2007 Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ramesh Chandra Pal by which, appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of advertisement of the OP/Petitioner, the Complainant/respondent applied with the requisite amount for the plot. The OP vide its letter dated 5.6.85 allotted a plot no. SL-10 of 468 sq. mt. in Shastri Nagar. On account of dispute arising with the Industrial Development Corporation in relation to the plot in Shastri Nagar, the OP vide its letter dated 25.7.93 offered a plot for allotment measuring 200 sq. mt. in Karpuripuram and again in its place vide letter dated 9.8.93 a plot measuring 250 sq. mt. in Niti Khand, Indra Puram, but the OP had demanded more cost in relation to the Indirapuram plot than the agreed cost that is why the complainant requested for allotment of 350 sq. mt. plot in Indirapuram at the rate prevalent at that time in Shastri Nagar. The complainant had already deposited the payable amount. The OP had till date not delivered the possession of any plot, whereas apart from plots allotted in Nehru Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Indira Puram other plots were also available and the OP had allotted them to different people. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted the application for allotment by the complainant and the allotment of plot in Shastri Nagar and Indira Puram in favour of the complainant. The OP made a statement that the complainant is liable to deposit the cost at the prevalent rate. Due to the reason that the complainant did not deposit the difference amount and did not give his consent so the possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation. The complainant could not be given possession due to his own fault. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot and deliver possession of plot of 468 sq. mt. either in Shastri Nagar or in Indira Puram at the rate prevailing in 1985 in Shastri Nagar and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person finally at admission stage and perused record.