IMPORTANT POINT
Reasoned order passed by State Commission has to be upheld.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 520/2008, “Sarwan Singh versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Ors.”, vide which, while accepting the appeal, the order dated 25.02.2008, passed by the District Forum Jalandhar in consumer complaint No. 353/2006, filed by the present respondent, Sarwan Singh, was modified.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Sarwan Singh made an application for allotment of a plot measuring 250 sq. yard in the 170-acre scheme of the opposite party (OP), the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, the present petitioner, in response to their advertisement. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide bank draft No. 578261 dated 04.12.2003 drawn on UCO Bank, Jalandhar Branch. The draw of lots for the Scheme was conducted on 07.02.2004. However, the complainant was not successful in the said draw of lots, but his name appeared at Sl. No. 7 in the waiting list drawn by the OP. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that the OP Trust sent a letter dated 07.04.2006 to the complainant, asking him to meet the Chairman of the Trust on 13.04.2006, after which the allotment shall be made in his favour.

3. However, when he contacted the office of the Trust, certain illegal demand was made from him. The complainant approached the State Government in support of his demand, but despite the State Government writing a letter dated 17.05.2006 to the Trust, the allotment of the plot was not made. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Trust, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Trust for allotment of plot and grant of compensation of Rs.2 lakh for mental agony etc. and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

4. The complaint was contested by the OP Trust by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that the name of the complainant was at serial No. 7 in the waiting list and hence, the plot could not be allotted till the waiting list matured.

5. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 25.02.2008 and directed the OP Trust to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation. The District Forum held that the complainant was not entitled to any plot, as he had filed the complaint after two years of the date of draw. However, the Trust was deficient in service, as they had not refunded the amount deposited by him within 180 days from the date of draw as laid down in their rules. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 30.03.2012, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the OP Trust to allot Plot No. 721A to the complainant, which had been surrendered by one Amit Gupta. The State Commission also directed that if the said plot was not vacant, a similar plot of the same value be allotted to him in the said scheme. The Trust was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant alongwith Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation. While passing this order, the State Commission held that seven persons had surrendered their plots including one Amit Gupta and hence, the same could be allotted to the persons in the waiting list including the complainant. The State Commission also directed the competent authority to hold an inquiry into the matter and fix the responsibility of the official who was instrumental in not allotting the plot to the complainant. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OP Trust is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6. Du