PREM LATA GAUTAM Vs. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was presented on behalf of Mrs. Prem Lata Gautam in the Registry of the Commission on 14.7.1993. The case of the complainant is that attracted by the terms and conditions published in the Brochure of the Scheme Kanpur Road, Lucknow of Lucknow Development Authority (in short L. D. A.) that me H. I. G. houses will be constructed by 31.3.1984 at the cost of Rs.1,25,000/-, she deposited Rs.10,000/- for the registration and allotment of M. I. G. house vide Challan No.200 on 27.6.1983. The L. D. A. issued an allotment letter dated 22.11.1983 for the H. I-G. House No. B-1-11/d in the Corner of the Scheme and "also demanded" Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- against the total cost of Rs.1,25,000/-as per allotment letter dated 22.11.1993. Accordingly Rs.25,000/- were deposited with the L. D. A. vide Challan No.6649, dated 19.1.1984 within the period of 3 months allowed. But to the dismay of the complainant the L. D. A. informed her by the letter dated 28.5.1994 after 6 months of the previous allotment letter that the H. I. G. House No. B-1-11/dallotted wrongly to her, was already allotted to one Mohsin Raza Rizvi and, therefore, could not be given to her and her name will be considered in next lottery draw though on enquiry it was found that the name of Moshin Raza Rizyi was never considered in the lottery. A protest letter dated 9.6.1984 was sent to L. D. A. but with no result. After several letters and personal contacts she was offered by the L. D. A. to choose one of the two left over houses and under the compelling circumstances for getting a house, she gave her consent and later on was allotted House No. B1-83/d on 25.9.1984 in the same colony which was after 10 months of the previous allotment letter. On receipt of the allotment she alongwith her husband visited the site of allotted House No. B1-83/d and found that there was a sewer mainhole and telephone pole in front of the main gate of the house, she and her husband both made several oral requests as well sent written letters dated 9.12.1986 and 20.4.1988 to remove the telephone pole and sewer mainhole but nothing was done by the opposite party (Lucknow Development Authority ).

(2.) It was also alleged that the Lucknow Development Authority was expected to complete construction of the house by 31.3.1984 and its possession was to be given immediately thereafter but the Lucknow Development Authority failed to complete the construction and deliver the possession in time as stipulated and thereby committed deficiency in service.

(3.) Besides it was further alleged that the complainant on the inspection of the allotted House No. B-1-83/d, found that it was under illegal possession of a civil contractor of the L. D. A. who was using it as a Store House since long, and she was not given possession inspite of the personal contacts made with the authority and letters written to L. D. A. By the use of the house as Store House by the L. D. A. 's contractor, ground-floor, mossaic flooring, plaster, painting, white-washing, wooden doors and windows and electrical fittings of the rooms were badly damaged. All these defects were also brought to the notice of the L. D. A. 's Officers through letters dated 11.10.1986, 21.12.1986 and 5.1.1987. Ultimately, the opposite party had got signed a proforma blank agreement in order to get the formalities completed and believing in good faith the agreement was signed on 6.8.1986 (Annexure 10a) but she was assured by the L. D. A. Officers to get all the formalities completed and defects removed soon and delivery of possession at the earliest and after great persuasion, the L. D. A. issued a letter dated 10.12.1986 to Executive Engineer to deliver possession (Annexure No.12 ). Inspite of several contacts made by her husband with the Executive Engineer and other concerned Officers possession of the allotted house could not be given nor the defects pointed out were removed inspite of letters dated 5.1.1987 and 21.4.1987 sent by the complainant to the Officer of the L. D. A. No details of the account of the price, amount paid in excess or less was given by the L. D. A. After a long gap of time the L. D. A. could deliver possession of the house on 26.5.1987. But the account of the amounts deposited and interest earned could not be given by the L. D. A. inspite of the letter dated 16.10.1987 written to it and contrary to his repeated requests again the L. D. A. demanded Rs.1,55,856/- vide its letter dated 25.1.1988 (Annexure 18a) and again a demand was made vide letter dated 28.1.1988 for Rs.49.040/- but gave no details of the account as requested earlier while the total cost of the house including lease rent intimated was Rs.1,46,800/- as per agreement dated 10.2.1988 (Annexure No.10a ). Failure to supply the accounts and demanding again large amounts of Rs.1,94,850/- and Rs.49,040/- the L. D. A. is guilty of the 'unfair trade practice' in rendering of service by it to the complainant although the complainant after taking loan from H. F. D. C. paid Rs.1,00.000/- through Draft No.396007, dated 29.8.1988 in addition to the Rs.52,514/- already deposited by her to L. D. A. Instead of furnishing the accounts the L. D. A. again sent a letter dated 13.4.1992 (Annexure 8c) demanding Rs.89,694/- from her ignoring her earlier requests made for details of the account which was requested again by her vide letter dated 10.6.1992 and again on 5.9.1993 but none on behalf of the L. D. A. did care to respond to her requests. Registration of Sale Deed was also not executed. Having been aggrieved with the L. D. A. 's apathy the complainant filed the complaint, praying that the L. D. A. be given direction for the following reliefs : (1)To furnish the details of the price of house and amount deposited, interest earned therewith and balance, if any, to be paid by the complainant or amount in excess to be refunded by the opposite party/l. D. A. (2)To execute and register the Sale Peed Without further delay. (3)To pay interest at the rate of 21 % on the amount of Rs.44,183 /- deposited by her from the date of the deposits to the date of the actual possession given (26.5.1997 ). (4)To pay the amount spent on repairs amounting to Rs.28,360/-. (5)To advance Rs.14,800/- for the remaining repairs. (6)To remove the main-hole from in front of the gate of her house. (7)To refund the excess amount of Rs.33,978/- as stood on 22.9.1988 (the final date of payment made by her ). (8)To pay compensation of Rs.5 lacs for harassment, mental agony, and delay in delivery of possession and the expenses incurred in coming and going from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow for contacting the L. D. A. Officers, expenditure incurred in correspondence (on posts and stationery and typing ).