- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 14.2.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 257/05, whereby the complaint of the appellant in respect of restrictive trade practice and deficiency in service against the respondent, was dismissed.
(2.) IN nutshell the facts of the case are that, earlier Bilaspur Development Authority, was functioning in the city, which was constituted by the Government under an enactment. That Authority chalked out a scheme for development of a housing colony in the name of Makhanlal Chaturvedi Nagar, Rajkishor Nagar Bilaspur. In that scheme applications were invited for house to be constructed by that Authority, under self finance scheme and under other various schemes. The complainant had also applied for one H.I.G. house in that scheme along with registration fees of Rs. 25,000 on 10.11.1999. Thereafter, the complainant, from time -to -time, deposited total Rs. 7,00,000 with that Authority. Later on, when the Municipal Corporation of Bilaspur, in which the Development Authority merged, from the date of merger, became the holder of all assets and liabilities of the Authority. Initially the house was booked under H.U.D.C.O. Finance Scheme and later on, on request of the complainant he was permitted to shift to self finance scheme. The HUDCO scheme was terminated by the order of the respondent and at the place of that scheme new scheme was chalked out. From time -to -time the complainant inspected the spot also, and found that no development work had started and on account of the fact of non -completion of the development work and also because the initial scheme was postponed by the respondent, instalment of one year could not be deposited by the complainant. On 2.3.2005, as per demand of the respondent, full remaining amount was deposited by the complainant but in spite of this deposit, the house was not provided and later on, on 6.7.2005 a demand of Rs. 1,02,989 was raised by the respondent, as amount of interest, on account of default of payment of one yearly instalment. It was requested by the complainant to the respondent Corporation that as no work was commenced on the site, so amount was not deposited in time and he may be exempted. Even after that request the house was not provided. Then complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before District Forum, stating all these facts and saying that it amounts to restrictive trade practice and thereby deficiency in service.
(3.) IN written version, the respondent has denied the allegations and pleaded that the complainant was required to deposit the amount of HUDCO self finance scheme in four instalments, but he failed to comply with that condition and had not deposited the amount of instalments in time. Therefore, he is liable to pay interest, as per agreement executed between the parties. It has also been informed that the construction work in the housing scheme has been completed and has also been inspected by the complainant, which could not be handed over to him and registration of sale deed also could not be executed, only because he has not paid the amount of instalment, as demanded by the respondent. Learned District Forum after considering the material placed before it recorded the finding that the demand of interest was as per the terms of agreement and so no deficiency in service was committed by the respondent.;