SUDHA AGARWAL vs U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD

THESE are two cross appeals arising out of the order dated 15th July, 1992 passed by the State Commission, Lucknow, in Case No. 184/ 91 on its file. The grievance put forward by the Complainant before the State Commission was that as early as on 27.3.1982 she had deposited Rs. 7,000/- with the Respondent-U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Paris had"by way of Registration charges for allotment of a house in a scheme that was advertised by the Respondent. It had been held out by the Respondent in the said advertisement that under the scheme the houses will be provided to the applicants within a maximum period of five years. In December, 1985 the Respondent called upon the Appellant to pay a further sum of Rs. 8,000/-. This demand was also complied with by the Appellant. But, notwithstanding the expiry of more than five years thereafter, not even a single house was constructed by the Respondent with the result that the Appellant was subjected to loss, harassment and mental agony. The Complainant thereupon approached the State Commission seeking redressal of her grievance. The State Commission by its impugned order disposed of the matter in a rather summary manner by directing the Opposite Party to include the name of the Complainant in the next draw of the scheme in question and that the Opposite Party should pay to the Complainant interest at 16 % on the amounts deposited by her from the date of deposit till the date of the State Commissioner''s order i.e. 15.7.1992. It is against the said order that both sides have come to us with these two appeals.

AFTER hearing both sides we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that if only the State Commission had applied its mind to all aspects of the case it would not have given the direction to the Opposite Party to include the name of the Complainant in the next draw relating to a particular scheme. If the facts had been looked into by the State Commission it would have become clear to the State Commission that during all these past years there has been no draw of lots at all under the scheme although more than 10 years have elapsed since the registration of applicants and construction of not even a single house has so far been commenced by the Opposite Party under the said scheme. Therefore, no purpose at all is served by the direction given by the State Commission to the Opposite Party to include the name of the Complainant in the next draw to be conducted under the scheme. There is no knowing at all as to whether any such draw will ever be conducted and, if so, when. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the following reliefs should be granted to the Complainant: (1) That the Opposite Party is hereby directed to refund to the Complainant the full amount of deposits made by her together with interest at 15 %. Such interest shall be calculated from the respective dates on which the two amounts were deposited till the date of actual re-payment. (2) The Complainant will also be entitled to receive from the Opposite Party a sum of Rs. 15,000/-by way of compensation for harassment and mental agony that she had to suffer by reason of inordinate delay and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The payments ordered above shall be made within a period of two months from today.

First Appeal 1992 filed by the Complainant is allowed as above. The Appeal No. 569 of 1992 filed by the Opposite Party (U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad) is hereby dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.