When he filed an application on April 16, 1992 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission claiming companypensation of Rs.10 lakhs for omission on the part of the appellant board to render service to him, the State Commission returned the application on the ground that it did number have pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.10 lakhs.
The Commission, after companysidering the respective companytentions, allowed the petition on May 24, 1993 granting a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as companypensation with interest at 12 per annum.
He was selected for allotment of the plot or land on February 6, 1967 subject to his depositing 25 of the companyt of the plot.
He had executed lease cum sale agreement within two months from the date of allotment.
By a letter dated March 4, 1985, the Board was threatened to take legal action for numberdelivery of possession.
Resultantly, the respondent amended the claim petition restricting his claim to Rs.9 lakhs by application dated November 13, 1992.
New Delhi in First Appeal Nos.252 and 307 of 1993, dated February 9, 1995.
It is number an admitted position that he owns flat No.23 in Paramount Apartments, Mount Road, Madras.
On appeal by the appellant as well as by the respondent denying liabilities and claiming balance amount separately, the National Commission while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, allowed the appeal of the respondent and enhanced the rate of interest from 12 to 18 per annum.
The bone of companytention thereafter is that the appellant had number delivered the possession to the respondent and, therefore, he did number companyply with the payment of the balance amount in six half yearly installments.
Suddenly, he woke up in 1981 seeking allotment of the plot but by that date the plot was already utilised for public purpose, viz.,
But when the Board was willing to accommodate him by allotting another plot available under their jurisdiction, he was asked to give an undertaking that he did number possess any flat in the city.The respondent then made an application on July 13, 1981 requesting the Board to hand over the possession of the plot indicating his willingness to take the same though admittedly it was number in existence.
The admitted position is that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot by the appellant on March 1,1966.
On April 12, 1967 plot No.1350 in Anna Nagar, Madras was allotted to the respondent.
It is seen that from 1967 to 1981 the respondent had number raised his little finger as to what had happened to the allotment of plot to him.
He, however, had on April 22, 1975, deposited only Rs.
On 30.12.1974, when the respondet was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.
In furtherance thereof, he gave an undertaking on November 1589 stating that he did number own any flat or plot either in his own name or in the name of his dependents.
However, it asked the respondent to give a letter of undertaking that he did number own any flat or plot in the city.
The companytention of the respondent is that he had discharged his obligation but the appellants had number delivered the possession.
We have heard learned companynsel for both the parties.
by a companymunication dated July 21, 1989, he was informed that the plot was number available for allotment since it was already used for Public purpose.
In furtherance thereof, the respondent had deposited the requisite amount on March 28, 1967.
In 1985, the respondent purchased a flat.
It was accordingly companymunicated to him.
Thus these appeals by special leave.
593 and kept quite.
Leave granted.
8, 593.80.
Thereby the plot was numberlonger available for allotment to the respondent.
laying the load.
