- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act, for short) is directed against the order dated 18.11.2002 in Complaint No. 406/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short), allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party/appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,917/ - with interest @ 9% per annum payable from 1.8.2000 as also to refund the amount of Rs. 18,827/ - being the value of the stamp papers and registration fee as well as cost of the complaint.
(2.) RELEVANT facts no longer in dispute stated in brief are that the opposite party/appellant is a body corporate and develops and allots on lease land for industrial purpose. The appellant developed industrial area at village Urla, District Raipur. As the complainant/respondent wanted to start his Casting Iron Industry, he got himself registered with District Industrial Centre, Raipur. The complainant, thereafter, submitted an application to the appellant for allotment of land in the said industrial area at Urla. The said application was accepted by the appellant and a letter of intent was issued by the appellant in favour of the complainant/respondent for allotment of 19,500 sq. ft. on the terms and conditions enumerated in the said letter. The premium, lease rent etc. totalling Rs. 1,00,917/ - has been deposited as desired by the appellant by its letter of intent dated 14.8.2000. The lease deed was executed by the appellant in favour of complainant/respondent, and the same was also duly registered.
(3.) THE grievance of the complainant was that despite allotment of land and the execution of lease deed as above, the possession of land was not given to him. It was averred that the land allotted to him was encroached upon by several persons and the appellant/Corporation failed to evict the trespassers. Hence possession of the allotted land to the complainant could not be delivered to him. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the possession of the land leased out to him be delivered to him or the amount of Rs. 1,00,917/ - paid by him along with stamp duty and registration expenses incurred by him, be refunded to him, with interest. He also claimed damages and cost of the complaint. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/appellant. It was mainly averred that the complainant/respondent himself had selected the land though was aware that the said land was encroached upon by trespassers. Thus, the complainant had consented to take the land on lease, from the appellant. It was also averred that though the appellant tried to remove the encroachment and had been making efforts therefor but the encroacher could not be evicted. It was also averred that as the dispute raised in the complaint would require detailed evidence, therefore, the complaint was not triable by the District Forum.;