Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.689 of  2007

1- Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority,

    Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines, Allahabad.

2- Vice President, Allahabad Development Authority,

    Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines, Allahabad.         …Appellants.

Versus

Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Sri Ambey Prasad,

R/o ESES/E$ A D A Colony, Rasulabad,

Distt. Allahabad.                                          ...Opposite party.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Deepak Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

Date : 09.11.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- This Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated  31.5.2006  passed by the Learned District Forum, Deoria in complaint case no.431 of 2004, Smt. Kakla Devi  Vs. Allahabad Development Authority & anr.

The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned order dated 31.5.2006 is absolutely illegal, unjust, arbitrary, highly unreasoned and lacks of application of mind and also without jurisdiction. The dispute of complainant does not come under the category of consumer dispute. There is no question of deficiency in services or negligence etc. It is apparent from perusal of the complaint that it was filed for claim of rebate in the interest and for avoiding the payment of

(2)

interest/penal interest which had occurred against the complainant on the basis of non-payment of the amount due/ instalments for several years and hence, subject matter of the complaint was mainly related to the pricing and charging interest etc. In order to some how fix some fault/liability on the part of the opposite parties the complainant did not mentioned the correct facts and has also concealed certain necessary and material facts. The opposite parties clarified all such facts and tried to bring the correct state of affairs before the leaned Forum, who did not read the pleadings of the opposite parties in entirely and did not try to understand the actual nature of dispute. It was clearly stated in the written statement that as per the allotment letter dated 23.6.1988 Rs.9,600.00 was required to be paid by the complainant withhin 30 days of that letter. This amount was necessary to be paid before the delivery of possession but the complainant did not at all make the payment of this amount. She paid only Rs.5,125.00 and that too much beyond the period of 30 days. Thus, the amount which was to be paid by 22.7.1988 (30 days from the allotment letter dated 23.6.1988) remained with her for several years. This is a clear negligence and mischief on the part of the complainant. The opposite parties strongly pleaded this point but the learned District Forum has not at all given any finding on this aspect. The amount of Rs.9.600.00 was to be paid in a single instalment before 22.7.1988 but the payment of Rs.5,125.00 which was made against it was in piecemeal and by 6.4.1989. Thus the remaining amount of Rs.4,475.00 had been unpaid since the year 1988-89. The ld. District Forum has not taken into consideration that the opposite parties have the right to claim interest of this amount

(3)

of Rs.4,475.00 and the demand of due made by them includes this amount along with interest. After taking the possession on 26.4.1989 by making the payment of meager amount of Rs.5,125.00 only the complainant did not make any payment for several years and made the payment of some amount on 22.7.1993. This payment was not made by the complainant all of the sudden. In fact the opposite parties had issued a notice dated 6.1.1993 informing the complainant about the instalments. Thus, the payment made on 22.7.1993 was a result of pressure created by the letter dated 6.1.1993. It is necessary to clarify as has also clarified before the ld. District Forum that the amount of Rs.11,025.00 shown to e due in letter dated 6.1.1993 was in fact the amount of monthly instalment which fell due till 6.1.1993. Thereafter, the opposite parties also  issued a letter dated 28.12.1994 informing the complainant about the dues and about the total amount of instalment money which fell due till 28.12.1994. As t he complainant had come up with the case before the ld. District Forum that she was informed about the amount of instalment by the opposite parties for the first time by means of letter dated 16.12.1996, the opposite parties strongly rebutted this false statement and brought it to the ld. District Forum that the amount of instalment though had been in the knowledge of the complainant since beginning yet by letter dated 6.1.1993 and 28.12.1994 the information about the amount of instalments and the amount of dues was given to the complainant but she did not deliberately respond to these letters and notices. The opposite parties clearly and strongly pleaded that they had informed the complainant about the instalment and the amount of dues by means of latter dated

(4)

6.1.1993 and 28.12.1994 yet the ld. District Forum not at all looked into these facts and letters. It is quite surprising that these letters not at all mentioned and discussed in the judgment. Since the complainant was not making the payment of instalments and was making the payment of very low amounts that too after a very long gaps, the opposite parties reschedules and re-fixed the instalments and brought these facts with a notice of the complainant by means of letter dated 16.12.1996. This letter has been wrongly utilized by the complainant as on the basis of the letter she has  tried to  show that the information about the instalments was given to her by means of this letter only which is totally as incorrect fact. The complainant has also tries to create the confusion by referring to letter dated 8.12.1999 wherein the amount of instalments has been indicated Rs.245.00. This letter was not only irrelevant for the purpose of present case but also was explained by the opposite parties to have been issued due to mistake. The ld. District Forum has also not given any finding on the pleadings made by the opposite parties that the complainant has applied for One Time Settlement scheme by getting herself registered under this scheme and accepting her request the opposite parties provided her the facility of One Time Settlement but she failed ot make the payment under that scheme. The ld District Forum has wrongly given undue weightage to the statement that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.39,875.00 to the opposite parties. In fact, the ld. District Forum should have seen as to how and in what manner, this amount has been paid. This amount includes the payment of Rs.20,000.00 paid by the complainant as late as

(5)

on 7.2.2000 thus making of the payment after a lapse of several years does not exempt any defaulter consumer from the payment of interest which had accrued in several years during which no payment or very very small payment made.

The ld. District Forum has wrongly held that till 16.12.1996 the complainant had paid Rs.14,875.00 this is incorrect and without any basis. The ld. District Forum has wrongly held that the complainant was liable to make the payment of intalments only from 16.12.1996 together with interest w.e.f. 16.12.1996. In fact, the direction given by the ld. District Forum in its order is ambiguous and confusing. The opposite parties are ready to produce their calculation and details of accounts if required by the Hon’ble Commission. Hence, it is humbly prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2006 be set aside.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Deepak Malhotra. The service on the respondent has been presumed sufficient vide order dated 31.10.2018. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.    

We have seen the judgment of the District Consumer Forum. The ld. District Forum has said that it is made clear in the allotment order dated 23.6.1988 that the information regarding instalment shall be given later on. The complainant received first notice on 16.12.1996 and till that date, the complainant had deposited Rs.14,845.00. It shows that the delay on the part of the opposite parties and this cannot be compensated by the complainant. The complainant is liable to

(6)

pay the instalment from 26.4.1988. The ld. District Forum did not interfere in the rate of interest and thereafter, partially allowed the complaint.

After going through all the pleadings, it is clear that the ld. District Forum has passed the judgment after due consideration of the facts and notices sent and held that the delay is not caused by the complainant but the delay is caused by the opposite parties. We are fully convinced that the judgment of the ld. District Forum, hence we find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2006. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2006  passed by the Learned District Forum, Deoria in complaint case no.431 of 2004, is confirmed .

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.

Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.

     ( Sushil Kumar )                            (Rajendra Singh)

           Member                                   Presiding  Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       ( Sushil Kumar )                             (Rajendra Singh)

              Member                                   Presiding  Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2