LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHAFIQ ULLAH KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.05.2012, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 35/2009, "Lucknow Development Authority versus Shafiq Ullah Khan", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal on grounds of limitation as well as on merits, the order dated 31.05.2008, passed by the District Forum Lucknow in consumer complaint No. 28/2007, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Shafiq Ullah Khan who is a Journalist by profession, booked a type-C building in the year 2000 with the petitioner Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) in their Vastukhand project at Gomti Nagar, for which he deposited a sum of Rs. 28,000/- on 15.04.2000. The petitioner/OP allotted a building bearing No. 1/170 to the complainant on 09.06.2000. The complainant is stated to have deposited all the instalments of money demanded by the LDA as per the details of payment supplied to him. However, when the complainant contacted the OP for registration of the building in his favour, he was asked to make a further payment of Rs. 1,81,500/- as the valuation of the building had escalated. The complainant also discovered that the allotted building was near a burial ground. On his request, the LDA allotted him another building bearing No. 1/2006 and demanded the additional amount from him. On his request, the OP granted 50% exemption on the additional amount demanded and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 90,746/- vide their letter dated 28.06.2005. The complainant deposited the said amount with the OP, but still the registration of the building was not done in his favour. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to get the registered deed affected in his favour and also to compensate him with a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month which was the rent being paid by him and also to pay compensation for mental harassment etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP by filing their written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,73,246/- with them till date and not Rs. 5 lakh as stated in the consumer complaint. They also stated that the final cost of house No. 1/266 had been worked out to be Rs. 3,83,049/-. The additional demand made by them from the complainant included various charges like the free hold charges, water and sewer charges, corner charges etc. The OP also stated in his written statement that the registration of the property could not be done because the Vigilance Department had asked for certain information from them regarding the allotment in question.