Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Mehrotra, President &
Mr. Banarsi Das, Sr. Member
PREM LATA GAUTAM—Complainant
versus
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Opposite Party
Complaint Case No. 293/S.C. of 1993— Decided on 6.6.1997
The Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) was negligent in its service and deficient in rendering service to the complainant by failing to furnish the details of the account regarding costs, etc., and remove the defects by carrying out repairs.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION - HOUSING - ALLOTMENT - DELAY IN POSSESSION - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - INTEREST ON DEPOSITS - REPAIRS - COMPENSATION - COSTS - L.D.A. (LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY).
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Mrs. Prem Lata Gautam, deposited Rs. 10,000/- for the registration and allotment of a MIG house in the Kanpur Road Scheme of Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). The LDA issued an allotment letter for a HIG house and demanded Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant deposited the amount and was allotted House No. B-1-11/D. However, after 6 months, the LDA informed her that the house was already allotted to someone else and her name would be considered in the next lottery draw. The complainant protested and was later allotted House No. B1-83/D, which was in a damaged condition due to its use as a storehouse by the LDA's contractor. The complainant made several requests for repairs and removal of defects, but the LDA failed to take any action. The possession of the house was finally given on 26.5.1987, after a delay of more than 10 months from the date of the previous allotment letter. The complainant filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission seeking various reliefs, including the refund of excess amount paid, interest on deposits, compensation for harassment, and reimbursement of repair expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The Consumer Commission found that the LDA was negligent in its service and deficient in rendering service to the complainant. The LDA failed to furnish the details of the account regarding costs, etc., and remove the defects by carrying out repairs. The complainant was entitled to know why and how there had been changes in demand of the costs at different times. The LDA was also liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant before the possession of the house. The complainant was entitled to reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on repairs of the damaged house and compensation for the delay in delivery of possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the LDA was negligent in its service and deficient in rendering service to the complainant? 2. Whether the complainant was entitled to know why and how there had been changes in demand of the costs at different times? 3. Whether the LDA was liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant before the possession of the house? 4. Whether the complainant was entitled to reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on repairs of the damaged house? 5. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for the delay in delivery of possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The LDA was negligent in its service and deficient in rendering service to the complainant as it failed to furnish the details of the account regarding costs, etc., and remove the defects by carrying out repairs. 2. The complainant was entitled to know why and how there had been changes in demand of the costs at different times as the LDA had initially declared the cost of the house as Rs. 1,25,000/-, but later demanded different costs at different times. 3. The LDA was liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant before the possession of the house as the delay in delivery of possession was due to the negligence of the LDA. 4. The complainant was entitled to reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on repairs of the damaged house as the damage was caused due to the use of the house as a storehouse by the LDA's contractor. 5. The complainant was entitled to compensation for the delay in delivery of possession as the delay was caused by the negligence of the LDA.
Final Decision: The Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed the LDA to furnish the details of the account, execute the Sale Deed, pay interest on deposits, reimburse repair expenses, repair the left-over items of the house, pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession, and pay the costs of the proceedings. The LDA was also directed to pay interest on the amounts mentioned in the order if they were not paid in time.
Mr. Banarsi Das, Sr. Member—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 complaina
