Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 1288 of 2004

Kanpur development authority through

its Vice-Chairman                                            …Appellant.                                                                         

Smt. Kalawati, R/o 358/8, Babu Purwa,

Colony, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur.                  .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate for  appellant.

None appeared for the respondent.

Date  20.4.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This Appeal has been filed under section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the appellant against the judgment and order dated  26.04.2004  passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum , Kanpur  in complaint case no.293 of 2002, Smt. Kalawati Vs. Kanpur Development Authority.

The grounds of appeal are that, that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction. The complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Forum in 2002 for not providing the plot, which was in fact allotted in 1989 as per his own averments, is barred under the statutory provisions in the CP Act as well as under the settled principle of apex court. The complainant has filed the complaint for restraining the appellant from cancelling the allotment and to quash the demand notice for Rs.76,096.75/- with the damages.

(2)

The complainant has been informed through letter dated 13 June 1992 in respect of the amount deposited by the complainant and the cost i.e. Rs.42,584/- in lieu of the cost of the allotted property. In view of the said agreement/letter dated 30 June 1992 wherein complainant was required to deposit Rs.1344/- as third monthly instalment in 60 instalments. The complainant has failed to deposit the instalments as per terms of the allotment letter but thereafter, in the year 1994 he has deposited Rs.4000/-  in August 1994 and November 1994. Admittedly, the complainant failed to deposit as per terms of the allotment letter and as such, she opted for OTS scheme published by the appellant, wherein opportunity was given to all the allottees to apply through Rs.100/- for the OTS in 2001. She was informed that now the cost comes to Rs.122,744.60 in respect of allotted property. But she, instead of depositing the cost, filed the complaint. The complainant has no right whatsoever in view of the settled law, in not depositing the balance cost of the property as per terms of the allotment letter and without depositing the demand amount to the notice. The complainant has also no reasonable ground to challenge the validity of the demand notice sent to the complainant under the OTS scheme. The appellant was left with no other option except to cancel the allotment of the complainant when she had failed to deposit the instalments as per the allotment letter.

The learned Forum Kanpur did not look into all these matters are and passed the impugned order which is

(3)

erroneous and against the facts of the case. Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may please to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment/ order.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Manoj Kumar. None appeared for the respondent. The notice on the respondent has been presumed sufficient. We have perused the pleadings evidence and documents on record.

The learned counsel arguing on behalf of the appellant has stated that in