ANITA TEWARI Vs. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned order dated 2 04. 2010, passed by the U. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in two cross appeals, i. e. , Appeal No. 1527/2008 and Appeal No. 1907/2009, filed before them by both the parties, challenging the order dated 3 05. 2008, passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No. 729/2004, filed by the present petitioner. The District Forum vide their order dated 3 05. 2008, directed the respondent/Opposite Party (OP) Lucknow Development Authority to allot the plot to the petitioner/complainant and hand over the possession of the same and get the conveyance deed executed. However, the State Commission vide impugned order, allowed the appeal filed by the OP Authority and dismissed the consumer complaint and directed the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant to her alongwith interest.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint No. 729/2004 by the petitioner/complainant Anita Tewari, are that she approached the OP Lucknow Development Authority (for short 'Authority') for allotment of a plot, upon which plot No. C-5/195 with area of 200 sq. mtr. at Vipul Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow was allotted to her. She made full payment of the cost of the plot with the OP Authority and a conveyance deed was registered by the OP Authority in the name of the complainant at the office of Sub Registrar, Lucknow. However, the possession of the said plot was never delivered to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the area of the plot on the spot was much less than the area sold by the opposite party vide sale-deed dated 15. 10. 1998. On repeated requests of the complainant, the Property Officer of the OP issued letter dated 16. 08. 2000 and 19. 10. 2000 to the Executive Engineer, with directions to submit detailed report about the shortfall in the area. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant approached the Vice-Chairman of the OP Authority, who agreed to allot another plot in the same locality with an area of 115. 5 sq. mtr. at the prices prevailing in the year 1998. However, the said plot was not given to her. The Vice-Chairman of the OP also issued a letter dated 26. 08. 2003 to the Secretary of the OP, directing him to deliver the possession of the plot C-5/195 to her. However, the OP issued a letter to her that house No. 5/76 had been allotted to her. However, the possession of the said house was also not given to her. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to deliver the physical possession of plot no. C-5/195, Vipul Khand to her and also to pay interest @21% p. a. on the amount deposited by her for the period of delay.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP Authority by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that Plot No. C-5/195 had never been allotted to her and the said plot did not exist in the sanctioned lay-out plan of the scheme made by them. The OP also stated that the registered deed produced by the complainant was a false and fabricated document and they had never executed the said registered deed in favour of the complainant. The OP Authority alleged fraud against the complainant. The OP Authority also stated that correct facts were not in the knowledge of their Vice-Chairman, when he issued his letter. The OP Authority also stated that house No. 5/76, Vipul Khand had been allotted to some other person.