Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UP,

Lucknow.

Appeal N0 2819 of 2006

Urmila Kumari Anand widow of Adarsh Anand,

R/o Flat No.83A, Pocket-B, 1/A, Janakpuri,

Delhi.                                                                    …Appellant

                                                Versus

Ghaziabad Development Authority  through

its Vice-Chairman.                                            ...Respondent

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Sri S.P. Pandey, Advocate for Respondent.

Date : 19.5.2022

JUDGEMENT

This appeal has been filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2006 passed by the Learned District Forum, Ghaziabad in complaint case no.380 of 2003, Urmila Kumari Anand Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority.

The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment is illegal and against the facts of the case. Learned District Forum has overlooked all the relevant documents and has acted against the interest of consumers. The Appellant/ complainant has accepted that she booked a plot in Hastinapur Scheme which was cancelled due to some reasons but her amount has not been adjusted to any other scheme. She was allotted a plot in Hastinapur Scheme measuring 40 m² vide letter dated 10^th August 1992 and she deposited the amount of the said plot with the respondent in time. The Appellant/respondent wrote many letters dated 20.09.96,

(2)

19.06.97, 19.08.99, 10.08.2002, 01.10.2002 and 20.12.2002 and requested the respondent to let her know about the status of her plot but no reply has been given by the respondent. The respondent/GDA did not give any reason for non-development of the scheme but unfairly started the sale of the said plot in the same land of Hastinapur scheme by changing the name as ‘Indraprastha’. The respondent has avoided to provide the possession of the plot to the complainant/Appellant deliberately to earn huge profits by selling the plot illegally and arbitrary. The Appellant has not been given any plot in this scheme. The respondent was duty bound to provide a plot of 40 m² in alternate in any colony at the old price upon which the plot was originally allotted to the appellant and the appellant being an old lady paid the entire cost of the plot but the officers of the respondent were delinquent in handing over the possession of the said plot.

This plot was under Economical Weaker Section (EWS) scheme. The respondent did not provide the plot to weaker section and sold the plot of the poor persons to others at higher price and put the money in their pocket by adopting unfair trade practice, deceptive practice and as such committed serious deficiency and gross negligence by not giving the plots to the weaker sections.  when the plot has not been given to her, she filed a complaint case before the learned District Forum . The learned Forum did not perused the case laws filed by the Appellant and passed the impugned order. So it is humbly requested that this Hon’ble State Commission be pleased to allow the present appeal and dismiss the impugned judgment.

(3)

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma and counsel for the respondent Mr. S. P. Pandey,  the junior advocate of Mr. S. N. Tewari. We have perused the pleadings, evidence and documents on record.

The respondent/opposite party ha