URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. MUKESH SORAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of RP Nos.3709 of 2007, 3710 of 2007, 3711 of 2007 and 3712 of 2007 which arise out of the common order dated 5.7.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur disposing of Appeal Nos.826 of 2006, 870 of 2006, 829 of 2006 and 871 of 2006 against the order (s) of a District Forum dated 13.4.2006. Order of the District Forum was for handing over possession of the plots by the petitioner to the respondents; complete the development work; and pay interest on the deposited amount @ 15% p. a. Forum's order was modified by the State Commission only reducing the rate of interest from 15% p. a. to 9% p. a. and the period for which it was to be paid.

(2.) As may be seen from the facts narrated in the order under challenge, for allotment of plots, the earnest money of Rs.8,000 each was deposited by the respondents/complainants with the petitioner/opposite party - Trust on 14.6.2003. Balance cost was paid to the Trust by 15.1.2004. On possession of allotted plots not being given and development work not completed at the site the complaints were filed claiming certain reliefs which were contested by the petitioner by filing written versions. During the pendency of complaints, a Commissioner was appointed by the District Forum presumably to ascertain the extent of development work still to be carried out by the petitioner-Trust and the Commissioner filed his report on 27.5.2004. In para No.3 of the order, the State Commission referring to that report has noticed that roads were incomplete, water pipelines were not laid, electric wires were not provided on the poles, drainage was not constructed, sewer lines were not laid and even demarcation of plots had not been done at the site. Para No.4 of the order further notices the submission that the development work had been completed only by 31.12.2006. Holding that 1 year period was sufficient for completing the development work and giving possession of the plots, 15.1.2005 was taken as the cut-off date for paying interest on the deposited amounts. Having heard Mr. Kumawat for the petitioner and considering the said facts, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sec.21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Clause 14 of the Terms and Conditions have no applicability to the facts of present case. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.