M/S. NIRANKARI INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS OWNER JAGMOHAN TALWAR, S/O LATE R.C TALWAR, R/O B Vs. NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1583 of 2015, Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. M/s. Nirankari Industries (Regd.) by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner is an Industrial Unit situated in Noida, which had applied in 1980 to OP/respondent authorities for allotment of house under housing scheme for Low Income Group houses and had deposited the prescribed registration amount. Under the said housing scheme, houses had to be allotted on instalments to industrialists operating in Noida under reserve quota. Under the said scheme, the opposite party conducted a lottery in which the complainant was allotted a house. In accordance therewith, the complainant was informed by the opposite party about the reserve/allotted house under the LIG scheme. However, subsequently, and in spite of repeated contact, neither further action was taken in respect of the allotment nor was possession given of the house. As per the complainant, he was informed upon enquiry that his allotment has been cancelled because on inspection the complainant Industrial Unit was not found to be functional. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant’s Industrial Unit M/s. Nirankari Industry had been issued a reservation letter dated 8.5.1981 under reservation quota, and the complainant was asked to furnish proof of the functionality of the Unit. As per the opposite party, a committee constituted for examination of such matters did not find the complainant’s unit as eligible for allotment. Therefore, his application was rejected and information was given on 27.6.1985. The opposite Party has also stated that the complainant’s application was rejected in lieu of non-fulfilment of eligibility and the reservation matter which was previously issued subject to terms was also revoked. It was further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to provide house at previously reserved cost and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000.00 and Rs.1,000.00 as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.