V. K. Mehta Vs. Secy,
Urban Improvement Trust (UIT)  INSC 1914 (7 November 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6593-6594 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
Nos.22838-22839 of 2007) V.K. Mehta ...Appellant(s) Versus Secretary, Urban
Improvement Trust (UIT) ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
Heard the appellant,
who has appeared in-person, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
The appellant filed a
complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Ajmer, [for short, `the District
Forum'] for awarding compensation on grounds, inter alia, that though a vacant
plot was allotted to him for construction of house in a sanctioned scheme in
the year 1986 but amenities like roads, drainage, electricity and water
connection were not provided to him. The said petition was dismissed and the
order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal by the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission [for short, `the State Commission']. Against the said
order, when the matter was taken to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission [for short, `the National Commission'], the matter has been remitted
to the State Commission. Hence, this appeal by special leave. Undisputedly, the
plot was allotted to the appellant in the year 1986 and possession was
delivered to him in that very year after he paid the entire price therefor.
Thereupon, after expiry of three years, a lease deed was executed in favour of
the appellant in the year 1989. The appellant constructed the house in the year
1990. Undisputedly, the electricity connection was provided in the said
locality in the year 1998 and water connection in the year 2000. So far as
roads and drainage are concerned, the same were provided to the residents of
the said locality in the year 2003.
From the aforesaid
facts, it becomes clear that though allotment of the plot was made to the
appellant, but no amenities, viz., electricity, roads, water supply and
drainage were provided for a decade or even thereafter.
In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the District Forum was not
justified in dismissing the complaint and the State Commission has committed an
error in affirming the same. In our view, the National Commission should not
have remitted the matter but should have decided the revision application on
merits. Ordinarily, we might have remitted the matter to the National
Commission to dispose of the revision application on merits, but, as this case
has a chequered history, we do not propose of adopt that course.
Having heard the
appellant, who has appeared in-person and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent and taking into consideration the totality of
circumstances, we feel that it will be just and expedient to award a sum of
Rupees five lakhs to the appellant by way of compensation. Accordingly, the
appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside, complaint filed by the
appellant is allowed and the appellant is awarded compensation of Rupees five
lakhs, which must be paid within a period of three months from today to him by
Banker's cheque or Demand Draft in his favour upon a Scheduled Bank at Ajmer.