AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Meerut Development Authority against the order dated 28.10.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.3190 of 2003.
Brief facts of the case are that on 11.5.1990, the petitioner allotted House No.P-87 in Pallav Puram Housing Scheme to the respondent at an estimated price of Rs.1,48,000/-. On 10.10.1991, the respondent was handed over possession of the subject house allotted to him by the petitioner. On 3.2.1996, the respondent informed the petitioner that owing to the illness of his daughter, he has not been able to pay the instalments for one year. Further, the respondent requested for conversion of his monthly instalments to half yearly instalments. On 6.11.1996, the respondent once again expressed his inability to pay instalments on account of the illness of his daughter, and requested the petitioner to convert the monthly instalments to half yearly instalments. On 30.4.1996, the petitioner allowed conversion of monthly instalments into half yearly instalments for the respondent. On 30.4.1997, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order passed in Meharban & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 54, directed additional compensation to be paid in respect of land acquisition undertaken by the petitioner. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to recover the amount of such enhanced compensation from purchasers of plots and buildings developed by the petitioner in the land acquired from the farmers/owners. On 27.11.1997, the petitioner informed the respondent about the above noted enhancement of compensation ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and called upon the respondent to pay an additional sum of Rs.82940.55 by 26.12.1997 in respect of the subject house allotted to him. On 29.8.2003, the respondent filed complaint case no.85/2003 before the District Forum, Meerut. The said complaint case was decided ex-parte against the petitioner, and it was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent upon payment of Rs.74,185/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal being No.3190 of 2003 before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following order:-
"The Appellant's appeal is partly allowed. The legal expenses of Rs.2000/- awarded by the judgment/order dated 29.08.2003 of the District Consumer Forum to the complainant is terminated. The rest of the order is confirmed.
Both the parties shall bear the cost of appeal."
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the allotment was made in the year 1990 for Rs.1,48,000/-. There was an order of the Supreme Court for increasing the land compensation and therefore, a demand of Rs.82940.55 was sent to the complainant. The complainant did not pay this amount and filed a consumer complaint stating that the petitioner authority has demanded Rs.74,185/- as additional cost for the house. It was argued that the notice was never served on the petitioner, however, some counsel appeared on one day and the District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner authority. Thus, the petitioner authority could not get any opportunity to file its defence before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 29.08.2003 passed the following order:-
"The complainant's complaint is accepted, and the complainant is directed to deposit Rs.74,185/- and fulfil other necessary formalities within one month. The opposite party is directed that upon its receipt, the opposite party shall execute the sale deed in respect of the subject house. Apart from this the opposite party must also pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as legal expenses within one month."
The petitioner preferred appeal before the State Commission, however, the State Commission has not given any consideration to the points raised in the appeal and documents filed by the petitioner /appellant. The State Commission has passed non-speaking order and has agreed with the finding of the District Forum. No reasoning has been given for agreeing with the order of the District Forum. Order of State Commission is not sustainable and is required to be set aside only on this ground.
In this regard, learned counsel referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.8.2000 passed in IA 1-2 in C.ANo.8895/1995. Learned counsel further mentioned that complainant had requested that due to his daughter's illness he was not able to pay monthly instalments and the same should be converted into six monthly instalments. Accordingly, the petitioner vide its letter dated 16.12.1996 allowed six monthly instalments to be paid. The learned counsel mentioned that an amount of Rs.10,08,070/- is due on the complainant and until that amount is paid the sale deed cannot be registered. In this regard the computer generated statement of account has been filed till 2015.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that as against the total cost of the house the complainant has already paid Rs.1,66,273/- and no amount is due for payment. The petitioner authority is unnecessarily harassing the complainant. When both the fora below have given concurrent finding, this Commission cannot reassess the facts and therefore, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and the same be dismissed. Learned counsel further stated that when it was known that the increased cost due to land acquisition was not Rs.74,185/- but was Rs.82,945/-, then the complainant paid Rs.82940.55. It was also argued by the learned counsel that in the year 1997, the only demand sent was for Rs.82,940/- and therefore, it cannot be said that the total dues is about Rs.10 lacs/-.
I have given a careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The only question in the present revision petition is to determine how much amount is due on the complainant as per the allotment letter and its condition of interest on the delayed payments. The petitioner authority has filed computer generated statement wherein it is mentioned that the total amount due on the complainant is about Rs.10,08,070/-. On the other hand, complainant is also claiming that he has paid all the amounts as per the demand of the petitioner authority and nothing is due on the complainant. The State Commission should have decided this point, however, the State Commission has passed cryptic order, which is non-speaking. The order only mentions the following:-
"Shri S.K.Sharma, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the applicant is present. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant was heard and the judgment/order dated 29.08.2003 of the District Forum was perused. The grounds for appeal were also examined.
After seeing the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there was no credible evidence of the legal expenses of Rs.2000/- imposed by the District Consumer Forum, on account of which it is liable to be terminated. The rest of the order is in accordance with law, and is eligible to be confirmed. The appellant's appeal is eligible to be allowed in part."
From the above, it is clear that no reason has been given for agreeing with the order of the District Forum and no point raised in the appeal has been discussed, examined and decided. Hon'ble Supreme Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir, (2001) 10 SCC 659 has observed the following:-
"2. We may point out that while dealing with a First Appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The Appellate Forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher Courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future."
In Terex Vectra Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Meharchand &Ors., RP No.3736 of 2012, decided on 09.04.2013 (NC) this Commission has observed;
"Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496" held that the judicial and quasi judicial courts/authorities are required to pass speaking orders."
On the basis of the above judgments, it is clear that the appellant authority should decide all the points raised in the appeal. Just agreeing with the order of the District Forum is not sufficient and the State Commission should give reasons for agreeing with the order of the District Forum. It is also notable that the appeal before the State Commission was filed in the year 2003 and the decision has been given on 28.10.2014 and still only a cryptic order has been passed. Clearly, this order cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.
Based on the above discussion, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh. The main point to be decided in the appeal is whether any payment is due on the complainant or not as per the conditions of the allotment letter? Clearly, the additional cost of Rs.82940.55 in respect of land acquisition has to be paid by the complainant. So, keeping these facts in view, this issue needs to be decided by the State Commission. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.03.2020. As the matter has already been delayed too much, the State Commission is requested to try and decide this appeal within a period of six months on parity basis so that complainant may not suffer further.