MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ARUN PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1523/2001, "Arun Prakash v. Meerut Development Authority", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 26.05.2001, passed by the Meerut District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 256/1997, filed by the complainant/respondent Arun Prakash, partly allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant made an application to the Opposite Party (OP), Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority) under their self-financing scheme for Medium Income Group House Allotment in response to their advertisement in the newspapers on 04.01.91 and deposited a sum of Rs.20,100/- as registration amount on 29.01.91. Further, on demand by the OP, the remaining amount of Rs.1,80,900/- was also deposited by the complainant on 29.04.1991, following which a MIG House No. N-53, was allotted to the complainant by the OP. The possession of the property was also delivered to him on 06.04.199 At the request of the complainant, the OP provided the details of the cost of the unit to him, from which it was discovered that they had charged a sum of Rs.12,647.71ps. as interest for construction period of 18 months, net profit of Rs.12,250.60ps., maintenance fees of Rs.2,090.30ps. and contingent expenditure of Rs.2,000/-. Alleging that the opposite party was not competent to charge these amounts, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking the following relief :-

(3.) The complaint was contested by the petitioner Authority by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the valuation of the property had been done in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Scheme. The Authority also stated that enhanced cost for the land was payable by the allottee and the sale-deed shall be executed after the deposit of the enhanced amount. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties in detail, partly allowed the complaint and directed as follows:-