AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.08.2014, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 1890/2007, "Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow versus Satish Chandra Goyal", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 09.03.2007, passed by the District Forum Ghaziabad in consumer complaint No. 123/2003, filed by the present petitioner/complainant, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Satish Chandra Goyal stated in his consumer complaint no. 123/2003 filed before the District Forum, Ghaziabad that he deposited a sum of 1,25,000/- for registration of a flat in the self-financing scheme, 045/Vasundhara, Ghaziabad in F127 type flat on 10.06.99. He was informed vide letter dated 27.07.99 from the Opposite Party (OP) that he was required to deposit six instalments of 1,80,000/- each in every third month. As per the complainant, he deposited the second instalment of 1,80,000/- on 03.12.99, although the same was due on 30.11.99, meaning thereby that there was a delay of 3 days in depositing the said instalment. All other instalments were duly deposited with the OP in time. For the minor delay in depositing the second instalment of 1,80,000/-, the complainant was forced to deposit an extra amount of 4,309/- as interest on the late payment on instalment and 25,000/- as ''Punarjeevan Shulk'' (revival fee). The complainant deposited the said instalments under protest, but filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP for the refund of the amount of 25,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the 22.11.2001. He also stated that the interest on late payment came to be 270/- only, hence a sum of 4,309/- - 270/- = 4039/- should be paid to him, alongwith compensation of 20,000/- for mental agony etc.
The complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party (OP) by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the second instalment was due on 1.11.99 and not on 30.11.99 as stipulated by the complainant. They had, therefore, charged a sum of 4,309/- as interest for the delayed payment and also a sum of 25,000/- as revival fees, which was in accordance with the terms and conditions.
The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed that a sum of 25,000/- taken as revival fee should be paid back to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 23.11.2001 to the date of payment. It was also directed that the excess amount of interest charged from the complainant, i.e., 4,039/- should also be paid to him and a compensation of 2,000/- on account of mental agony and 1100/- as cost of litigation should be paid to him. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.
Vide impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.
During arguments, it was stated by the petitioner who appeared in person that the order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law and should be restored. The order passed by the State Commission represented erroneous interpretation of the facts on record. The petitioner stated that there had been a delay of 3 days only on his part in depositing one instalment. The OP was not justified in charging the revival fees of 25,000/- and interest of 4,309/- from him.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP referred to the terms and conditions of the self-financing scheme in question, saying that as per clause 8.4 of the self-financing scheme, if an instalment is not paid within 6 months, the registration of flat is rejected, and the deposited money is refunded as per the rules. The complainant had not deposited the requisite amount within 6 months and hence, he had been asked to deposit 25,000/- as revival fees.
I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
A perusal of the reply filed by the opposite party before the District Forum and a perusal of the memo of appeal filed by them before the State Commission indicates that the opposite party have failed to offer any explanation as to how the complainant was asked to pay a sum of 25,000/- as revival charges. It is the case of the OP that if the payment of an instalment is not made within 6 months, the allotment in question will stand cancelled. However, it is not clear from the facts of the case as to how the instalment was late by 6 months. The case of the complainant is that he was late by 3 days only in depositing the second instalment of 1,80,000/- which was due to 30.11.99. It is admitted in the written statement of the OP before the District Forum that the second instalment was deposited on 3.12.99. Even if the version of the OP is believed, that the amount was due on 1.11.99, there is no justification for charging the revival fee of 25,000/-. The District Forum, therefore, rightly directed the OP to refund 25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. Further, the OP have failed to explain, how they charged a sum of 4,309/- as interest for delayed payment. According to the complainant, a sum of 270/- only was chargeable for the delay in making the payment of the second instalment.
In the light of the discussion above, the OP UPAVP, Lucknow have miserably failed to explain how they charged a sum of 25,000/- as revival charges and 4039/- as interest from the complainant. Under these circumstances, the present revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside, being perverse in the eyes of law. The order passed by the District Forum is restored and the OP is directed to ensure compliance of the same within four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.