IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 182 days in filing revision petition cannot be condoned.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1523/2001, “Arun Prakash versus Meerut Development Authority”, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 26.05.2001, passed by the Meerut District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 256/1997, filed by the complainant/respondent Arun Prakash, partly allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant made an application to the Opposite Party (OP), Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority) under their self-financing scheme for Medium Income Group House Allotment in response to their advertisement in the newspapers on 04.01.91 and deposited a sum of Rs.20,100/- as registration amount on 29.01.91. Further, on demand by the OP, the remaining amount of Rs.1,80,900/- was also deposited by the complainant on 29.04.1991, following which a MIG House No. N-53, was allotted to the complainant by the OP. The possession of the property was also delivered to him on 06.04.1992. At the request of the complainant, the OP provided the details of the cost of the unit to him, from which it was discovered that they had charged a sum of Rs.12,647.71ps. as interest for construction period of 18 months, net profit of Rs.12,250.60ps., maintenance fees of Rs.2,090.30ps. and contingent expenditure of Rs.2,000/-. Alleging that the opposite party was not competent to charge these amounts, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking the following relief:-

“a. That the amount taken by the opposite party arbitrarily on account of cost of the house, interest, profit, maintenance and contingent expenses being Rs.29,000/- and the interest thereon at Rs.20,000/- from 06.04.1992 and on Rs.9,000/- from 02.02.1995 @15% till the date of realisation be awarded to the complainant.

b. That expenditure incurred in correspondence and legal notice amounting to Rs.2,500/- be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party and also Rs.20,000/- on account of mental pain and agony be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.

c. ....................

....................”

3. The complaint was contested by the petitioner Authority by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the valuation of the property had been done in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Scheme. The Authority also stated that enhanced cost for the land was payable by the allottee and the sale-deed shall be executed after the deposit of the enhanced amount. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties in detail, partly allowed the complaint and directed as follows:-

“However, it is hereby ordered to the OP the excess amount realised by the OP from the complainant Rs.12,646.71/- amount of profit Rs.12,259.60/- maintenance amount Rs.2,090.60/- and un-imaginary amount Rs.2,000/- total Rs.28,996/- the OP is liable to pay to the complainant alongwith interest 12% p.a. from the date of institution of the complainant till its payment, within one month. Except it, the OP should pay Rs.1,000/- as for expenses for litigation and Rs.2,000/- as for compensation. Besides, it is ordered to the OP that the OP must execute the sale deed of the

allotted house in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of this order.”

4. Being aggrieved against the Order of the District Forum, the OP Authority challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP Authority is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5. During preliminary hearing, it was contended b