CHERYL AZAVEDO Vs. SCISSOR OVER COMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the brother of late Kalawati who was the complainant before the District Forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as KDA).

(2.) It is not in dispute that the deceased Kalawati had applied for allotment of a EWS flat in 1983 after depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000 as earnest money. At that time, the price of the house was estimated at Rs. 12,000. It was stated in complaint that the allotment letter never reached her; in fact it was delivered to some one else and some other person is living in that flat. In the year 1991, the deceased Kalawati received a notice for depositing of Rs.2,400 along with Rs. 2,500 as miscellaneous expenses and Rs. 1,200 towards interest. The complainant deposited only an amount of Rs. 2,425 and did not deposit the amount of interest as according to her she was not a defaulter. Further an amount of Rs. 8,575 was deposited with UCO Bank on 18.1.1992. It appears, in between the allotment was cancelled, which was restored on application but the price payable by the allottee/complainant was raised to Rs. 31,400, i.e., the current price of the flat. It is the case of the complainant that price of the house was Rs. 31,400 was not acceptable to her. Arbitration proceedings were initiated at the instance of the complainant and Arbitrator gave the award which was not acceptable to the complainant and since after depositing the total price of the house valued at Rs. 12,000, possession of the house was not being given to the complainant, a complaint was filed in the year 2002 before the District Forum with a prayer for delivery of possession of flat No. B-411, EWS after getting it repaired and praying that allotment be made at the original price Rs. 12,000 and not more. A prayer for compensation of Rs. 1 lac was also made.

(3.) The matter was contested by the respondent. Several points were raised before the District Forum, who after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint by directing the respondent to receive Rs. 19,416 along with interest @ 15% p.a. and deliver the possession as also executed the Sale-Deed in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved by this order/not satisfied with this order, both the parties filed two separate appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the District Forum. It is in these circumstances, this revision petition has been filed before us.