Plot Allocation Dispute: Consumer Forum Upholds Rights of Allottee Against Development Authority.


24 October 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

A protracted legal battle concerning the allocation of a residential plot has culminated in a significant victory for an individual consumer, Rachna Mantri, against the Indore Development Authority (IDA). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed the IDA's revision petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the State and District Consumer Forums, which directed the IDA to execute the sale deed of plot no. 216 in favor of Mantri.

The dispute stemmed from an agreement between the IDA and a cooperative society, wherein the IDA was to allocate residential plots to the society's members based on certified recommendations from the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Mantri, a member of the society, had paid the requisite amount for her plot in 2004 but was not included in the initial list of allottees.


 

 

In 2012, Mantri filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, alleging deficiency in service. The IDA argued that it was obligated to allot plots only to those listed in the certified recommendations and that the society had outstanding dues, hindering further allotments. The District Forum, however, ruled in favor of Mantri, directing the IDA to allot and execute the lease deed.

The IDA subsequently appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which upheld the District Forum's order, noting that Mantri had deposited the necessary amount and was listed in the seniority list. The IDA then filed a revision petition with the NCDRC, challenging the State Commission's order on several grounds, including the absence of a direct contract with Mantri and the society's outstanding dues.

During the NCDRC hearing, Mantri countered the IDA's claims, asserting that her name was indeed included in the certified list of allottees, a fact supported by documents produced before the Commission. She also argued that the IDA, as a statutory authority, was amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer forums for deficiency in service, citing precedents from the Supreme Court.

The NCDRC, after careful consideration of the evidence and arguments, dismissed the IDA's revision petition. The Commission affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums, emphasizing that Mantri was a consumer of the IDA and that her name was present in the certified list of allottees.

The NCDRC addressed the IDA's contention regarding the absence of a direct contract, stating that the land belonged to the IDA, the scheme was formulated by the IDA, and the payments were made through the society to the IDA, establishing a consumer-service provider relationship.

The Commission also rejected the IDA's reliance on a single-member decision in a previous case, stating that the decision turned on its own facts and was not applicable to the present dispute.

Furthermore, the NCDRC highlighted the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction, stating that it could only interfere with the lower forums' orders if they had exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by law or had acted with material irregularity. In this case, the Commission found no such irregularities and upheld the concurrent findings of the State and District Forums.

The NCDRC's decision reinforces the rights of consumers in dealing with development authorities and underscores the importance of adhering to certified lists and fulfilling contractual obligations. This ruling serves as a precedent, ensuring that development authorities cannot evade their responsibilities towards consumers under the guise of technicalities or internal disputes with cooperative societies.


Section 12, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Section 21, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986