LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH Vs. VIRENDRA SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), Lucknow Development Authority (for short "the Development Authority"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.09.2014, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1671 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Development Authority, as barred by limitation, as there was a delay of over five months in filing the same, for which, according to the State Commission, no sufficient cause was shown.

(2.) The Appeal had been preferred by the Development Authority against the order dated 31.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II, Lucknow (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 620 of 2009. By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Development Authority to pay to the Complainant a sum of 4,16,188.00, stated to be overcharged by it from the Complainant, within two months from the date of the said order, with simple interest @ 9% p.a. Besides, the Development Authority was also directed to pay to the Complainant a further sum of 10,000.00 towards mental and physical harassment and 3,000.00 towards the litigation costs. By way of default stipulation, interest @ 12% was also awarded in favour of the Complainant.

(3.) On 16.06.1984 the Complainant had applied for a house with the Development Authority under its Self-Financing Scheme for Journalists. On payment of a sum of 12,000.00, he was allotted a house on 22.09.1984. On further payment of 6,000.00 on 28.01.1985, the possession was handed over to the Complainant in 1988. Subsequently, the Complainant paid the monthly instalments regularly. Several times the Complainant enquired from the Development Authority about the final amount to be paid by him for getting the house registered in his name but of no avail. Suddenly, on 24.06.2008 the Complainant received a letter from the Development Authority, informing him that the final costing of the house had been done and a sum of 12,00,086/- was required to be paid by him by 31.07.2008, failing which penal interest would be charged. On his showing receipts for the amounts already deposited, the demand against the cost of the house was reduced by the Development Authority to 9,37,362.00. Between the period 22.07.2008 and 24.10.2008 the Complainant deposited a sum of 8,00,000.00 with the Development Authority. On 16.12.2008, as requested by him, the Complainant received a copy of the statement of accounts, which showed that the Development Authority had overcharged him to the tune of 4,16,188.00. Despite several requests, including a legal notice, dated 18.04.2009, to different government/departmental functionaries, the said amount was not returned to the Complainant. In the said background, alleging unfair trade practise and misappropriation of his money by the Development Authority, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had sought certain reliefs, mentioned in the Complaint.