Case nº Revision Petition No. 2779 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, May 09, 2014 (case Meerut Development Authority Vs Manju Gupta)

JudgeFor Appellant: Ranbir Yadav and Anzu K. Varkey, Advocates and For Respondents: Nikhil Jain, Advocate
PresidentV.B. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member) and Rekha Gupta, Member
Resolution DateMay 09, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


V.B. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)

  1. Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') against impugned order dated 1.5.2012 passed in (Appeal Nos. 773 of 2005 and 232 of 2006), by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short, 'State Commission'). Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut (for short, 'District Forum') on the allegations that he submitted an application to the petitioner for registration of plot in Higher Income Group in the Housing Scheme of Petitioner. Respondent was allotted plot No. 04/22, under 'Rakshapuram Housing Scheme' through lottery draw held on 12.7.1988. The estimated price of the said plot of 300 sq. metres was Rs. 1,05,000 at the rate of Rs. 350 per sq. metre, out of which respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000 at the time of registration and Rs. 25,000 at the time of allotment. Balance amount had to be paid in eight half yearly installments. Respondent in all had deposited a sum of Rs. 61,400. After deposit of the aforesaid amount, petitioner cancelled the allotted plot without issuing any notice to the respondent and without undertaking the development work on the plot. It is further stated that respondent is ready to pay interest on the outstanding amount but no satisfactory reply was received from the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner has made allotment to the people of the same category after having recovered interest on the outstanding amounts but is adopting biased policy against the respondent. The respondent is entitled to get her own plot through allotment.

  2. Accordingly, respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the petitioner to allot a plot of land to the respondent. In case, the plot is not available under the Scheme, then any other plot may be allotted in any other scheme on the same terms and conditions. Further, petitioner be also directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation. In the alternative, if plot of land cannot be made available, then amount deposited by her be refunded along with interest @ 24% p.a. with sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation.

  3. In its written statement, petitioner took the plea that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the respondent. It is stated that final rate of the plot had been determined at Rs. 400...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT