BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BRAHMANANDA HOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in FA/736/2012. By way of the impugned order, the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Khurda (in short "the District Forum") passed in CC No. 614/2007 has been upheld.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 20.7.1991, the complainant submitted application along with Rs. 6,000 for allotment of MIG Category plot having size 2400 sq.ft. in the scheme floated by the OP, namely, Kalinga Nagar Plotted Development Scheme. The total value of the plot was Rs. 30,000. In 1993, the application of the complainant was registered by the OP and the same was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 7.9.1993. The complainant alleged that the OP issued regret letter dated 16.10.1995 informing the complainant of their inability to allot a plot under the said Scheme, but the complainant was advised to keep the deposit amount with the OP so that the complainant could be considered for the future Housing Plotted Scheme. It was also made clear that the OP would not pay interest on the deposit amount. It is the case of the complainant that although he inquired the status of his application vide his two letters, the OP failed to reply. It is the case of the complainant that he submitted a representation on 5.11.2007 seeking information on the availability of the plots published vide BDA Notification No. 209 dated 1.11.2007 in the local newspaper but the OP failed to respond. Complainant alleged that OP has allotted MIG plots to different applicants under the Scheme even after the issuance of the regret letter dated 16.10.1995 issued to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant was forced to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The OP contested the claim of the complainant on the ground that OP had informed the complainant of his non-selection for allotment of MIG plot during the lottery, vide letter No. 8826/AL dared 16.10.1995. By way of the said letter, the complainant was also informed that if the complainant would keep his deposit with the OP, his application may be considered for future projects but the complainant failed to reply. The OP contended that in response to the letter dated 21.6,2006 sent by complainant inquiring the status of his application, he was informed to take refund of the initial deposit by submitting the original challan as the OP was not in a position to launch any scheme in the near future, however, the complainant failed to respond. The OP vehemently denied the allegation that the plots were allotted to some persons illegally. In this regard, it was also stated that the OP published an advertisement in the newspaper only to achieve clarity in the records concerning the allotment of plots under the Kalinga Nagar Plotted Scheme.