SANTOSH GUPTA Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Consumer Complaint No. 2407 of 2017 by Smt. Santosh Gupta - complainant against the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority - opposite party (Authority) first came up on 5.10.2017. The learned Counsel for the complainant sought an adjournment to argue on the aspect of maintainability of the complainant's status as a consumer. He was given time and heard again on 30.10.2017.

(2.) Facts in brief are as follows. The complainant, already running a unit in the name of "Kridnak Udyog" (later changed to Fun Zoo Toys), applied in June 2008, for allotment of one industrial plot ad-measuring 3,000 sq. mtrs. to 'boost her livelihood', vide her application dated 20.6.2008 along with deposit of Rs. 16,65,000 . She was allotted one plot No. 49 measuring 3,000 sq.mtrs. in Sector Eco-tech-X-II of Greater Noida vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 6.10.2008. As per terms and conditions of allotment, the lease of the plot was to be executed within eighteen months and unit at the plot was to be operational within 36 months from the date of allotment. Despite completion of all the formalities including deposit of the money as required, the Authority did not execute the lease deed in favour of the complainant. On 11.11.2010 the Authority issued a letter informing that actual area of plot is 3069.10 sq.mtrs. instead of 3,000 sq.mtrs. and demanded an additional amount of Rs. 12,24,053 towards increased area and location charges. This was also deposited. On 19.7.2011, lease deed of plot ad-measuring 3069.10 sq. mtrs. in favour of the complainant was executed but opposite party did not hand over the physical possession. Thereafter, the opposite party/Authority advised her to start work on the plot without waiting for possession letter. For this, the complainant sought sanction of the map from the Planning Department of Authority vide letter dated 1.3.2012. She was informed vide its letter dated 21.3.2012 that permission could not be given in view of Allahabad High Court's order dated 21.10,11 staying construction work in the area lying under Master Plan-2001. This order was vacated around end September, 2013, when the complainant again pursued sanction of the map by depositing Rs. 53,100 towards fees and charges. Finally, after more than three and half years, the Authority sanctioned the map vide its letter dated 3.8.2015 Another problem arose in that the actual area was less at 2,769.35 sq mtrs. and with this, excavation work as planned could not be carried out. The complainant sought refund of the excess amount paid but to no avail. The complainant continued to follow up with the officials of the Authority and wrote another letter to opposite party on 6.8.2016, requesting refund of all charges, expenses and fees for the reduced area along with interest. On 29.5.2017, when the complainant visited the office of the Authority, then she was told orally that her request cannot be accepted.

(3.) The complaint is that it is crystal clear from the above narration that the opposite party and its officials acted in a mala fide manner in this whole matter from the very beginning, and were therefore grossly negligent and efficient in rendering due services to the complainant. Hence, this consumer complaint seeking reliefs on various counts aggregating Rs. 1,20,37,539.00 including 15 lakh for loss of earning, Rs. 30 lakh for mental torture, etc.