IMPORTANT POINT
Only a subsisting consumer can maintain consumer complaint.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—The petitioner opposite party no.1 being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh dated 07.05.2014 in appeal No. 1959 of 2005 has preferred this revision petition.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent no.1 Pramod Kumar Tiwari filed a consumer complaint in District Forum alleging that he was allotted plot No. 93, Block X-1, Scheme-II, Krishnapuram measuring 356 sq. yards by the petitioner Authority. The allotted plot was a corner plot. There was additional surplus land of 60 sq. yards adjoining the said plot. The said plot was also allotted to the respondent no.1 complainant and the petitioner Authority executed a registered Deed for the area of 416 sq. yards including the additional land in favour of the complainant on 14.11.1973. It is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner Authority in collusion with respondent no.2 Narendra Kumar Gupta despite of having knowledge that the additional land of 60 sq. yards was leased to the complainant, constructed a HIG House H-1/32, Krishna Puram, Kanpur covering the additional 60 sq. yds. as also the road adjoining the same and the HIG house was sold to respondent no.2. The complainant wrote several letters to the petitioner Authority to undo the wrong but in vain. Being aggrieved, the respondent no.1 raised the consumer dispute.

3. Opposite Party no.1 in its written statement raised a preliminary objection that dispute raised by the complainant being of civil nature does not fall within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum. On merits also, opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint. It was, however, admitted that plot No.93, Block X-1, Scheme II, Krishnapuram alongwith additional 60 sq. yds. was allotted to the complainant and lease deed was executed in his favour. It was denied that subsequent to the execution of the lease deed, HIG house was constructed on land forming part of the land allotted to the complainant and the adjoining road, which house was sold by the Authority to opposite party no.2.

4. District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and ordered as under:

“Complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed. Opposite Party No.1 Kanpur Development Authority is hereby directed to pay the entire money deposited by the complainant in connection with the disputed plot admeasuring 45.26 sq.mtr. with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of deposit as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within two months from the date of the order and in case of default in payment of compensation, the Opposite Party shall pay interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum form the date of passing of the order.

Opposite Party can recover the aforementioned amount of compensation from the concerned officer/employee. Copy of this order be sent to Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur for information and necessary action.”

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, respondent no.1 complainant preferred an appeal and the said appeal was disposed of with following directions:

“Instant appeal is hereby allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur Nagar is hereby confirmed in its modified form.

Complaint filed by the complainant is hereby allowed. Kanpur Development Authority is hereby directed to deliver peaceful possession of the disputed plot ( 416 sq. yard) to the complainant within two months or allot an alternate corner plot of same size and similarly situated roads in any other developed colony in Kanpur City at the old rates and execute registry of the same at the cost of the KDA.

Respondent no.1 Kanpur Development authority is also directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five lakh only) as compensation to the complainant within two months from this order. In case of default in payment