GEETA CHAKRAWORTY vs SACHIV, ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.7.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 271 of 1994. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted house No. 7/15 (EWS) on 24.12.1980 in Baghambary Housing Scheme on hire basis. The possession was also delivered to the complainant. Thereafter this house was converted into Hire Purchase Scheme with certain conditions. A notice dated 19.11.1987 was sent for deposit of rest of the amount. The rest of the amount was not deposited by her. The allotment was cancelled on 31.1.1989. Hence she was directed to hand over the possession of the house to ADA. It was also intimated that the rest of the amount shall be recovered as land revenue. On 21.2.1989 the complainant moved an application against the cancellation of the allotment on the ground that she did not receive any cancellation notice and the cancellation is illegal and prayed for time upto June, 1989 for making payment. The Development Authority allowed time upto 31.3.1989. Another notice was given to the complainant for deposit of the amount by 31.5.1990. The amount was not deposited. Therefore, on 14.6.1990 her allotment was cancelled and she was ordered to vacate the house. Thereafter she gave an application mentioning therein that she has deposited Rs. 1,000/- with ADA and rest of the amount will be deposited later on. She also prayed for cancel -lation of order dated 14.6.1990. She was directed to be present before the Deputy Secretary of ADA on 23.7.1990 at 11 a.m.

IN the mean time one Ramji Pandey has moved an application for allotment of this house which was allotted to the complainant as her allotment has been cancelled. On his application on 26.6.1990 the Bill Collector made a report after visiting the site that the house is locked and on the front portion of the house there is name plate of Ram Ji Pandey, Advocate. Thereafter complainant as well as Ram Ji Pandey were directed to be present on 23.7.1990. The parties did not appear. On 1.9.1990 A.D.A. issued a letter to Ram Ji Pandey that if the entire amount is deposited by him in cash then allotment can be made in his favour and he has also to pay the rent due against the previous allottee and if he is prepared he can give his consent. Ram Ji Pandey gave his consent but indicated that rent of the previous tenant be not charged from him. Ram Ji Pandey was again directed to deposit the arrears of rent. When it was not fulfilled the allotment of Ramji Pandey was cancelled on 24.9.1990. Thereafter Ramji Pandey filed a writ petition before Hon''ble High Court in which direction was issued that parties should be heard. After hearing both the parties allotment in favour of Ram Ji Pandey was cancelled and it was directed that possession of the house should be given to ADA. The complainant was directed to deposit the entire amount within 15 days.

The complainant has now filed this complaint for damages worth Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that employees of ADA in connivance with Ramji Pandey took away the belongings of the complainant. It was also prayed that damages to the house should be got repaired by ADA.

ADA contested the case and denied the allegation of the complainant regarding damage to the articles in connivance with its employees. Parties led their evidence before the District Forum who after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that no damages could be proved by the complainant, hence it dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED against this judgment and order the complainant has come in appeal. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. In the present case we have perused the judgment and complaint which has been filed by the complainant. In the complaint the complainant has mentioned about the damage of the property and taking away of the articles by Ram Ji Pandey in collusion with the staff of ADA. A list of the articles alleged to have been taken away from the house has been given in the complaint. In the entire complaint it has not been mentioned as to what was the value of the articles and there is no proof that the articles were of the complainant. Unless loss is proved nothing can be granted to the complainant. The complainant had to prove the loss of every item and the price of the same according to the market value. Therefore, the District Forum was perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint. The appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum are confirmed. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.