LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAIN VIPIN KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SHYAM KISHORE VERMA S/O SHRI KHUSHAL CHAND, R/O HOUSE NO. 559

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (short, State Commission) in Appeal No.121/2010.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that he was a displaced shop owner whose shop was demolished on 14.10.1992 without giving any notice by the petitioner/OP. Subsequently petitioner assured the complainant that he would be provided an alternative shop on easy instalment on no profit, no loss basis, which were constructed under 'Kanpur Road Scheme'. Accordingly, complainant was allotted shop no.S-1/67/B, Commercial Complex, Sector-B, (Bara Birba), Kanpur Road Scheme on 31.10.1992 by the petitioner. Along with allotment letter, possession was also given to the complainant. Complainant was given a notice in Sept. 1993 regarding payment of shops. The expected cost of the shop was shown as Rs. 83,300.00 and the registration amount was Rs. 8,500.00. But this cost was too high and not based on no profit, no loss as directed by the Honourable Minister to the Vice-Chairman of the petitioner. Subsequently, the cost of the shop was fixed Rs. 2,15,000.00 and the monthly instalment was fixed as Rs. 4427/-. Further, Rs. 21560.00 only were to be deposited within 30 days. Electricity was provided in 1997 in the shop, due to which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 1,50,000.00 approximately between 14 Oct. 1992 to 1997. Hence, the said complaint was filed in the District Forum for the following reliefs:

(3.) The petitioner/opposite party contested the complaint before the District Forum and had refuted the claim of the respondent. The opposite party stated that the respondent was allotted the shop on the basis of mutual agreement between the shop-keepers and the opposite party on no profit, no loss basis. After allotment, the respondent had been informed the cost of the shop for which he did not agree and the payment was not deposited. As regard water, electric connection, these were to be provided by separate departments and not by the opposite party. Rs. 83,300.00 had been fixed on no profit, no loss basis only. Due to non-payment of the amount, interest was accruing on the said amount continuously due to which cost of shop was increasing. The opposite party stated that the complaint was liable to be rejected as complainant had not deposited any amount except the registration amount while he was in possession of the shop and using the same.