Secretary, Lucknow Developm,Ent Authority vs Smt. Kusum Gupta Through Lrs

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 10.08.2023 in Appeal No. 2094 of 2012 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh arising out of Order dated 20.01.2012 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 892 of 2002.

There is a reported delay of 21 days in filing the present revision petition.

For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application and also to decide the petition on merits and not to dismiss it on the threshold on the point of limitation, the delay of 21 days in filing the petition is condoned.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that because of inadvertence a wrong plot was allotted to the consumer. The petitioner is ready to allot an alternate plot if requisite documents are filed. Submission is that the requisite documents have not been filed even though the correspondence in that regard was made.  Submission is that in such circumstances the imposition of costs by the fora below is unreasonable and should not have been done.

Learned counsel for the respondents in rebuttal submitted that the mental agony, the state of uncertainty and the predicament of fighting the cause running from pillar to post for a long period of time has been beyond description. It has been submitted that all the ordeals which the respondents underwent was because of the deficiency of service and the gross lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner and its callous disregard towards the rights of the poor consumers who were made to suffer for no fault on their part.  It has been submitted that the cost imposed is in fact on the lower side and does not adequately compensate the anguished pain of the complainants who have yet to get the plot to which they were entitled and from which they have been deprived just because of sheer negligence of the officials of the development authority.  Submission is that there is absolutely no reason to interfere in the Order passed by the State Commission and there is certainly no jurisdictional error reflected in the same.  Learned counsel has also tried to emphasize upon the legal limitations of revisional jurisdiction which this Commission exercises.

Perused the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar.

The relevant facts germane to the genesis of the matter as have been succinctly captured in the Order of the District Commission may be extracted wherein and which reads as follows:-

The statement of the complainants according to the complaint in short is that the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority, after taking the desired amount from Late Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta, husband of the complainant No. 1. Mrs. Kusum Gupta and father of Mr. Shivaji Gupta and Mr. Shailesh Gupta, had allotted a plot No. SS/192/H-Sector, H category. In this allotment letter. the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority had asked to deposit some additional money by a fixed date, which was paid by Late Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta within time, but even after that, neither the possession of the above allotted plot was given to them nor the sale deed was executed in their favour by the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority. Hence, it is the prayer of the complainants is that the possession of the plot allotted in the name of Late Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta should be given to the complainants and its sale deed should also be executed and Rs. 2 lakhs should be awarded to the complainants for the additional expenditure that will have to be incurred in the construction on the land and Rs. 50,000/- be given for the mental, financial and physical suffering.

The opposite party Lucknow Development Authority has said in para 6 of its counter that after allotment of the plot to Late Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta, it came to the notice of the respondent, Lucknow Development Authority that this plot has been allotted by mistake in the name of Late Subhash Chand Gupta because this plot had already been allotted in the name of Shanti Devi in 1988 and its sale-deed had also been executed on 11.01.1996. The opposite party has further stated in its counter that after this fact came to the notice of the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority, the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority instructed Late Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta that he can be allotted another plot at the same price but in the meantime, Late Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta died. After this, when the complainants contacted the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority, then the opposite party directed the complainants to submit succession certificate, death certificate etc. but the complainants did not do so, hence no further action could be taken in this matter. (As per the translated copy of the Order of the District Commission furnished by the Petitioner).

After proceeding with the matter in accordance with law the Order was passed by the District Commission on merits whereby the complaint was allowed and the following award was passed:-

The complaint of the complainant Mrs. Kusum Gupta is partially decreed against the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority. The opposite party Lucknow Development Authority is directed to allot the plot to the complainants without taking any additional money from them and also give them physical possession of the same and execute the sale-deed in favour of the complainant within two months of receiving the certified copy of this order. Apart from this, the delay in getting the plot by the complainant is due to the mistake of the officers/employees of the opposite party due to which the cost of construction of the building has undoubtedly increased, hence, in this case, the opposite party shall pay a compensation of one lakh to the complainants and Rs. 5 thousand for litigation expenses. If the opposite party does not pay the said amount to the complainant within the stipulated period, then the opposite party will have to pay the said amount along with the rate of 9 per cent annual interest on this amount from 05.02.2004 till the payment is made. (As per the translated copy of the Order of the District Commission furnished by the Petitioner).

Feeling aggrieved by the District Commission’s award the appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission also went through the entire documents and evidence that was adduced and passed a very elaborate Order making a descriptive analysis of facts and law both which appears to be not even needed in a case like this which involved simple issues.  It would suffice to quote the concluding portion of the State Commission’s Order which reads as follows:-

The present appeal is dismissed with cost and special penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs is being imposed on the Dy. Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, which will be paid to the complainants through RTGS within a month, otherwise they will have to pay an interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum from the date of filing appeal till the date of final payment. The decision of the learned District Commission dated 20.1.2012 passed in complaint no. 892/2002 Smt. Kusum Gupta and others vs. Lucknow Development Authority is being upheld.

If any amount is deposited by the Appellant in the presented appeal, then the said deposited amount along with the accrued interest will be transferred to the concerned district consumer forum for disposal as per law. (As per the translated copy of the Order of the State Commission furnished by the Petitioner).

While arguing the petition here, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been in a position to dispute the fact that the plot that was allotted to the complainants had already been allotted before to one Shanti Devi in the year 1988.  It is not difficult to imagine what level of negligence afflicts the functioning of the development authority and as a result of the negligent, deficient act of the authority what mental agony and harassment has been caused to the complainants in this matter.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has simply not being able to point out any jurisdictional error that may be said to have crept into the impugned Order.  It may be observed that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction this Commission has to act within a defined ambit as has been provided by the statute. Unless it may be shown that the lower fora have exceeded in its jurisdiction or have failed to exercise the same, this Commission is loath to interfere in the concurrent findings of negligence and deficiency as are apparent on the face of record on the part of the petitioner.  This Commission also may step into and interfere if some material irregularity may be shown in the impugned Order.  There is certainly no element of perversity visible in the impugned Order which could be said to have vitiated the same. Suffice is to say that the Bench finds the Order passed by the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The Bench does not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. It also does not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. There is no good ground for interference in the impugned Order in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The Bench has also not been able to come across any streak of perversity in the findings nor has it been able to discern any legal principle having been overlooked or wrongly ruled by the State Commission. Certainly the State Commission cannot be castigated either to have overstepped or transgressed its jurisdiction or to have omitted to exercise the same rightfully. The facts and circumstances appear to have been weighed and vetted well and to our satisfaction.  (Refer: Order dated 08.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr. & Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269)

The petition lacks merits and stands dismissed.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all the  parties in this petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.