Indore Development Authority VS Rachna Mantri

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Indore Development Authority – Petitioner
versus
Rachna Mantri and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.435 of 2022
(Against the Order dated 08/02/2022 in Appeal No. 14/2014 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
Decided on 24.10.2024

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil K. Sharma and Mr. A. Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Anumita Verma and Mr. Parth Sarthi, Advocates
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Vishal Singh and Ms. Sejal Jain, Advocates

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(o), 21(b) – Allotment of plot – Deficiency in services – Privity of Contract – "Consumer” – Concurrent findings of two foras below against petitioner-Authority – Complainant/respondent No.1 is consumer of petitioner-Authority – Land out of which plots are/were to be allotted by petitioner Authority belongs to Petitioner Authority an the scheme as per which plots are/were to be allotted have been formulated by petitioner-Authority, allotment of plot is on a consideration & subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria/terms & conditions of scheme – Payment is to be made by applicants to petitioner through the Society – Acts & omissions of Authority fall within definition of services as per Section 2(o) of 1986 Act which include any services available to potential users including complainants for housing construction facility – Complainant/respondent-1 is Consumer of petitioner & Complaint is maintainable – National Commission agree with findings of State Commission – Both fora below have given well-reasoned orders no reasons to interfere with their findings – NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by Forum & State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record – No illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in orders of State Commission & same upheld. (Paras 9 and 12)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.02.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 14 of 2014 in which order dated 25.09.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 1255 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2022 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner was Appellant before the State Commission and Respondent No. 2 before the District Forum, Respondent No. 1 was Respondent No. 1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and Respondent No. 2 was Respondent No. 2 before the State Commission and Respondent No. 1 before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 06.06.2022. Respondent No. 1 filed Written Arguments on 02.08.2024.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i) The Respondent No. 2 society entered into an agreement with the Petitioner Development Authority to allocate residential plots to its members on being certified by the joint Registrar of the cooperative Societies upon certain conditions, including payment of premium, development expenses, lease rent and interest on delayed payments. On 27.02.2004, Respondent No. 1 paid some amount to the Respondent No. 2 society. Plots were allotted to 146 members based on certified recommendations by Joint Registrar, but Respondent No. 1 was not included in this list.

(ii) On 01.12.2012, Complainant (Rachna Mantri) filed a complaint with the District Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging that she paid for a plot but was not allocated. The petitioner stated that the agreement required plots to be allotted only to those listed in the certified recommendations, and Complainant was not on that list. The Petitioner stated outstanding payments from the society, asserting that without these dues settled, further allotments were not permissible.

(iii) On 25.09.2013, the District Forum ruled in favor of Complainant, directing the Petitioner to allot and execute the lease deed of plot No. 216 within one month. The petitioner appealed, asserting that there was no direct contract between the Complainant and Petitioner and that all plot allotments were made as per the certified recommendations and outstanding dues. On 18.02.2022, the State Commission dismissed the appeal, claiming Complainant had deposited the necessary amount and was listed in the seniority list.

(iv) The petitioner contends there was no contractual obligation towards Complainant as her name was not included in the certified allotment list. The society’s failure to pay outstanding dues impacts the entitlement of its members. The allotment and execution of lease deeds depend on certification from the Joint Registrar and payment of required amounts.

5. Vide Order dated 25.09.2013, in the CC no. 1255 of 2012 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and with the following directions:

“a) Directed the respondent no. 2 to complete all the formalities of allotment, registration of lease deed of the plot no. 216 of scheme no. 114 part 2 within one month.

b) The Complainant is entitled to get physical and mental agony damages of Rs.5,000/-. Both the respondents will bear half of the said amount.

c) The Complainant is also entitled to get cost of the complaint from the respondents jointly or severally. The valuation of the complaint is Rs.1,000/-.”

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 25.09.2013 of District Commission, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 08.02.2022 in F