For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha & Mr. Akhil K. Kulshreshtha, Advocates
PRONOUNCED ON 7th July, 2014
O R D E R
PERJUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2179 of 2003 – Agra Development Authority Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was partly modified.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted M.I.G. house by OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.1,89,000/-. Price of the house was to be deposited as per schedule of payment shown in the allotment letter. Complainant further submitted that he deposited amounts on different dates, but possession of Flat No. 89 in Indrapuram Scheme, Agra was not given to him inspite of notice. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant inspite of repeated notices failed to deposit cost of the flat and ultimately by letter dated 4.2.1993; allotment was cancelled and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties directed OP to refund deposited amount with 12% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental torture and cost of the case. Appeal filed by the OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and grant of interest by District Forum was set aside against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in setting aside grant of interest without any cogent reason; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Petitioner along with revision petition has filed application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing revision petition and submitted that his wife Dr. KirtiSharma remained hospitalized from 17.2.2012 till 31.3.2012 and again from 3.4.2012 to 22.5.2012 and in such circumstances, delay occurred in filing revision petition. Along with this application, he has filed discharge slip of the hospital, which proves that complainant’s wife was under hospitalization for a period of almost 3 months. As copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner on 24.1.2012 and just after some days his wife was hospitalized for a period of 3 months, we deem it appropriate to condone delay of 39 days in filing revision petition.
6. As far merits of the case are concerned, perusal of record clearly reveals that inspite of repeated reminders, petitioner failed to
deposit due amount and consequently, allotment of flat was cancelled by the respondent, which has not been challenged by the petitioner.
7. District Forum allowed 12% p.a. interest on the deposited amount, which has been set aside by the learned State Commission vide impugned order. No reason has been given by District Forum for allowing 12% p.a. interest on deposited amount and learned State Commission has not committed any error in setting aside grant of interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any document on record to prove that in case of cancellation of allotment, deposited amount was to be refunded with interest. Learned State Commission by impugned order further directed the respondent to refund the amount without any deduction, whereas in ordinary course if allotment is cancelled on account of non-payment of dues, some amount is forfeited. In the present case, no amount has been forfeited and in such circumstances, grant of interest by District Forum was not justified and learned State Commission has not committed any error in modifying the order. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER
( VINAYKUMAR ) MEMBER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
ORIGINALPETITION NO.59 OF2003
M/S. JEEVEE EXIM 5/Rajit Apartments Gulmohar Cross Lane No.12 J.U.P.D. Scheme, Ville Parle (W) Mumbai