|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a court order that chronicles the 34-year- long struggle of ex-Army man Shukla and his family to get possession of a small plot allotted by the Kanpur Development Authority. In fact as the story begins, the consumer or the applicant before the KDA is still in the Army. He has a couple of years to retire and he hopes to build a small roof over his head before that happens. He, therefore, applies for a plot in the Indira Nagar scheme of the KDA and in 1973, he is allotted a plot measuring 297 sq mt costing Rs 17,820 and asked to deposit 25 per cent of the cost of the plot within a month. He informs the KDA that he had already deposited Rs 5,000 in 1972. Then in 1975. he deposits another Rs 5,000 and requests the KDA to give him possession as early as possible as he is due for retirement in 1976 and would, therefore, like to build his house before that. All his requests and appeals, however, fall on deaf ears. Then in 1984, he is told that his file is missing. He continues to run from pillar to post for the next 14 years and then one day in 1998 he is informed that his allotment is cancelled for his failing to deposit 25 per cent of the cost of the land. His repeated letters showing proof of his having paid the money does not make any difference to the KDA. So in 2001, he takes the matter to the consumer court and in 2004, the state commission orders the KDA to allot him an alternate plot at the old rate. Since the commission does not award any compensation, Shukla files an appeal before the national commission, which confirms the order of the state commission and grants 12 per cent interest on the amount of Rs 10,000 deposited by the consumer. But the saga does not end there. The KDA does not comply with the order, forcing the consumer to file an execution petition before the state commission. This time, much to his shock and dismay, the state commission allows the KDA to dictate the terms of allotment and comes up with a new interpretation of is own original order and that of the national commission. As per the national commission’s order, the consumer has to get the plot at the price at which it was first allotted to him. However, if the new plot is bigger than the old plot, then the consumer has to pay at the prevailing rate for the additional area that he is getting. In this case, since the KDA had offered as an alternate plot, another site measuring 297 sq mt only , it had to collect from the consumer only Rs 7,850 (the cost of the plot at that time was Rs 17,850). Even here, since the KDA had to pay interest on the Rs 10,000 deposited by the consumer at that time, it actually owed the consumer money, after working out the interest due. Instead, the KDA adjusted the Rs 10,000 paid by the consumer as the amount towards part of the plot (166.66 sqmt) , calculated the remaining area at the prevailing price and said that the consumer had to pay Rs 3,41,853. And the state commission repeated this in its execution order. When the consumer wanted to know how the state commission could depart from its own original order, he was told that the earlier order was missing from the files. The shock was too much for Shukla to bear and soon he suffered a stroke and died. His wife and children then took the battle and filed a revision petition before the apex consumer court against this erroneous and illegal execution order. Holding that the state commission had committed an error while passing the execution order, Mr B.K. Taimini, member, and Justice S.N. Kapoor, presiding member, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, directed the KDA to comply with its order. Says the national commission: "As per the settled law of this commission and also the Supreme Court, alternate plot has to be allotted at the price at which the original plot was allotted. We have said so in clear terms in our order dated March 1, 2005. According to us, the KDA shall have to allot a plot of 297 sq mt at the then prevailing price only" (RP No 2815 of 2005). The behaviour of the KDA in this case is deplorable. But what needs to be probed is the attitude of the state commission. Can a consumer court meant to uphold the rights of the consumer be allowed to act contrary to its mandate and to the extent that it even ignores the order of the higher consumer court?’’
|
||
|
|
||
