Allotted 12 Sq M, Got 8 Sq M: NCDRC Orders LDA to Recalculate Price

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has partly allowed a revision petition filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), directing it to first determine the actual identity and area of a shop in possession of a consumer before demanding payment. A bench comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) modified the orders of the lower fora, emphasizing that the price must correspond to the actual space delivered.

A Tale of Two Shops: The Mix-Up at Balaganj

The dispute arose from an allotment of a commercial shop at the Balaganj Shopping Centre in Lucknow. The complainant, Bahar Akhtar, was initially allotted Shop No. UGF-86, measuring approximately 12 square metres. Finding the location unsuitable for his business, he requested a change. The LDA subsequently allotted him Shop No. UGF-98 on the same terms and conditions. Possession was handed over on 19 February 2001, but Akhtar soon discovered that the shop he received measured only about 8 square metres—far less than the promised area.

Commissioner's Tape Reveals the Truth

During the pendency of the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Lucknow, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the site. The inspection conducted on 28 October 2010 uncovered a critical error: the shop in Akhtar's possession measured only 8.1039 square metres, while the larger Shop No. UGF-98 (11.7216 square metres) was in the possession of another allottee, Harsh Malhotra. LDA engineers admitted that shop numbers had not been marked at the time of possession and that the two shops had apparently been swapped.

Lower Fora Rule in Favour of Consumer

The District Commission allowed Akhtar's complaint, directing the LDA to receive the balance amount of the total cost of the allotted shop and execute the registration within two months, along with ₹2,000 as litigation costs. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, dismissed the LDA's appeal, prompting the authority to approach the NCDRC in revision.

LDA's Plea for Interest and Identity Correction

Before the NCDRC, the LDA argued that the lower fora erred in directing it to accept only the balance principal amount. It contended that the authority was entitled to charge interest on the outstanding dues, as the complainant had not paid the full amount. The LDA also disputed the identity of the shop, alleging that the complainant had altered the premises and was liable to pay the cost applicable to Shop No. UGF-98.

NCDRC's Directive: Identify First, Then Demand

The NCDRC observed that the core dispute revolved around the identity and actual area of the shop in the complainant's possession. It noted that the LDA's own demand notice of 18 January 2018 referred to property No. UGF-98 with an area of 11.719 square metres, which contradicted the ground reality revealed by the Advocate Commissioner's report.

The Commission directed the LDA to first identify the shop and its measurement based on the allotment letter and the Commissioner's report, and then raise a demand for only the balance principal amount. It further ordered that the complainant pay 6% interest on that balance, calculated from the date of possession (19 February 2001). The LDA must raise the demand within one month, and the complainant has two months to clear the dues. Upon payment, the LDA shall execute the conveyance deed.

Key Observations

"The Development Authority shall therefore first identify the shop and its measurement in possession of the complainant and then be entitled to receive only the balance of the principal amount as directed by the District Commission keeping in view the allotment made in favour of the complainant and proportionate to the shop together with its area allotted to the complainant and in his possession." (Para 15)

"The said balance of payment has to be made by the complainant as directed by the District Commission together with 6% interest thereon to be calculated from the date of possession as admitted by the complainant in paragraph 5 of the complaint that is 19.02.2001 ." (Para 16)

Final Verdict

The NCDRC partly allowed the revision petition, modifying the orders of the lower fora. The LDA is now obligated to verify the actual shop dimensions before any demand, and the consumer must pay the adjusted principal with modest interest. This ruling underscores the principle that in consumer disputes over property allotment, the delivered area must match the promised dimensions, and any deviation must be resolved before the authority can demand full payment.