Back
2010(1) CPR 398 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Baij Nath —Appellant
versus
Lucknow Development Authority —Respondent
First Appeal No. 464 of 2005
Decided on 22.1.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. V.K. Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vinay Garg, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where the allotte of the plot did not pay the instalments on due date, he cannot claim interest on refund of his deposited amount.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g),(o) —Deficiency in service—Allotment of plot—Non-compliance of terms and conditions of the contract—Instalments not deposited by the allotte on due date and not paid of last two instalments at all—Amount refunded long by the authority on request of the Complainant himself—Appellant himself negligent in not complying with the terms of Contract—Not entitled to interest on deposited amount—Amount refunded to the appellant after deducting Rs. 10,000/- as per rule—Appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrong. (Para 10)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Ashok Bhan, President —This Appeal arises out of the Order dated 29.09.2005 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) whereby the State Commission dismissed the Complaint of the appellant/complainant by the impugned Order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the First Appeal are as under:
As per allegations made in the Complaint, appellant/ complainant applied for allotment of plot measuring 25 × 50 meter in Transport Nagar Yojana, Lucknow in prescribed Form No. 0013 and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- through Demand Order No. 034060/1208/92 dated 12.08.1992 drawn at Punjab and Sind Bank, Lucknow on 02.12.1992. It is stated that appellant was allotted plot No. I, Block-C, Phase-II, Transport Nagar, Lucknow on 16.04.1993 by the respondent-Authority That appellant deposited Rs. 5,87,088/- for the aforesaid plot in U.C.O. Bank, Hazratganj Extension Branch, Lucknow Development Authority .That appellant received letter No. 337/JSS dated 24.07.1995 from Joint Secretary of the respondent asking the appellant to deposit the installment with interest to enable the respondent to give physical possession of the property which was replied by the appellant vide letter dated 07.08.1995 stating therein that the appellant had deposited all the installments and he was ready to take possession of the property allotted to him by the respondent. That thereafter, appellant had written several letters and also tried to contact the concerned authorities of the respondent for getting the physical possession of the plot allotted to him and requested the respondent that if the said plot is not available in Phase-II, then, he may be allotted any other alternate plot in Phase- I but the respondent never respondent to the request made. That on 30.06.2000 appellant submitted an application to one Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, Deputy Secretary of the responded to refund his money back with interest. That after running from pillar to post, appellant received a refund voucher of Rs 5,76,088/- against the amount of Rs. 5,87,088/- deposited by the appellant, after deducting Rs. 10,000/- . Being aggrieved by the same, appellant sent legal notices dated 27.10.2001 and 06.11.2001 on the respondent claiming Rs. 6,60,300/- as interest from 1992 to 2001 @ 18% p.a. and Rs.10,000/-with interest which the respondent deducted at the time of refund. Rs. 1,00,000/- were claim for physical labour, mental agony and expenditure incurred by the appellant for getting the money back. That the respondent neither replied to the legal notices nor paid the amount claimed. Thus, appellant filed a Complaint before the State Commission.
3. On being served, respondent filed its Written Statement denying all the allegations made by the appellant.
4. State Commission, after taking into consideration, all the pleadings and the evidence lead by the parties, dismissed the Complaint. It was held that in view of Annexure 10 which is the letter written by the respondent, it was made clear that the appellant had not deposited the amount towards, 1st, 2nd and 3rd installments in time. That in Annexure 11, it was admitted by the appellant that he would deposit the 3rd installment on 30.10.1995, i.e., the due date. That from letter dated 23.12.1995 of the appellant wherein it was written by the appellant that he has to deposit the next installment, it is clear that the appellant had not deposited the 3rd installment by 23.12.1995. Amount due towards 4th and 5th installments was not deposited. That as there was non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the contract, appellant is not entitled to any interest on the deposits made by him and the respondent had the right to deduct necessary amount from the deposited amount and return back the balance amount. State Commission also overruled the reliance placed by the Counsel for the appellant on the decision of Hon’ble Suprem
