LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. SURAIYA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the impugned order dated 31.07.2015, passed by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 744 of 2017.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Respondent/Complainant had registered with the Petitioners/Opposite Parties for allotment of a house. The Petitioners allotted Flat No. E-1/439, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme, but the Respondent did not receive allotment letter for many days. She continuously demanded the allotment letter but to no avail. Finally, Petitioners directed the Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 70,000/- in lump-sum and other charges of Rs. 1691/- for Registry of Flat and the Respondent deposited the entire amount in 2006 itself. It was alleged that the Petitioners adopting unfair trade practice and in connivance delivered the allotment letter of the said Flat No. E-1/439 in the name of some other woman of same name as that of the Respondent and got money deposited by her also. The Respondent as per the directions of the Petitioners, had deposited the entire amount in the year 2006 itself for registry of the said flat and as per their directions after purchasing stamp paper for registry and getting Agreement to Sell typed out visited them for Registry whereupon the Petitioners did not execute Registry of Respondent and asked her to wait for some time for Registry. It was further alleged that the Respondent kept on making continuous efforts with the Petitioners for Registry of her flat but they did not take any action for the same which caused the Respondent severe mental and physical torture as also physical loss. Hence, Respondent filed a consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Lucknow-II seeking relief that the Petitioners be directed for Registry of the flat in question in favour of the Respondent and award Rs. 3,50,000/- for mental and physical agony and paid and financial losses together with cost of the case Rs. 5,000/-.

(3.) Petitioners in their written statement stated that Respondent had deposited Rs. 100/- for the Registration of one plot of land in Chowk area in which her father's name was mentioned as Rehmat Ali and permanent address as Johri Mohalla 308/56, Chowk, Lucknow. However, no flat was allotted in the name of the Respondent and nor had any demand been letter issued and the flat in question as per department records stands allotted in the name of Smt. Suraiya Bano W/o Abdul Shamim R/o 400/25, Mohalla Qutubpur, Lucknow and after depositing of money, the agreement having been executed on 11.10.1991 and possession letter was also issued. The auction for registry in favour of Smt. Suraiya Bano W/o Abdul Shamim was being taken when the complaint was received on 23.05.2007, in which it was alleged that Smt. Suraiya Bano had died. Some agents in connivance with authority wanted to grab the house by posing some other woman as Suraiya Bano. After the aforesaid information, the action for Registry was deferred and letters were issued to both Smt. Suraiya Bano for submitting proof of parentage but none of the parties submitted proof of allotment and parentage. Consequent to depositing Rs. 100/-, the Registration amount on 17.03.1983, the Respondent did not come under the category of consumer. No allotment letter for the flat in question was issued in favour of the Respondent and the representation of the Respondent was also rejected by the Department and the Petitioners have not committed any deficiency in service and complaint of the Respondent is time barred.