Allotted 12 Sq. Metres, Found 8 Sq. Metres: NCDRC Directs LDA To Recalculate Price Based On Actual Area

  • Allotted 12 Sq. Metres, Found 8 Sq. Metres: NCDRC Directs LDA To Recalculate Price Based On Actual Area
    Listen to this Article

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has partly allowed a revision petition filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) concerning the allotment of a commercial shop at Balaganj Shopping Centre, Lucknow. The Commission directed the Authority to first determine the identity and actual area of the shop in the complainant's possession on the basis of the allotment letter and Advocate Commissioner's report, and thereafter raise the demand accordingly.

    Facts:

    The complainant, Bahar Akhtar, was initially allotted Shop No. UGF-86, measuring approximately 12 sq. metres, at Balaganj Shopping Centre, Lucknow, developed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). As the complainant claimed that the allotted shop was not suitable for running his business, he requested a change of shop. The allotment was subsequently changed from UGF-86 to UGF-98 on the same terms and conditions.

    According to the complainant, possession was handed over to him on 19 February 2001. However, he alleged that the shop in his possession measured only around 8 sq. metres, despite the allotment being for a 12 sq. metre shop. The estimated cost of the shop was ₹2,41,600, and he stated that he had deposited ₹61,000 between 2000 and 2003. After his representations seeking final costing did not yield relief, he filed Consumer Complaint No. 662 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Lucknow.

    During the pendency of the complaint, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the disputed shops. The inspection conducted on 28 October 2010 found that the shop in the complainant's possession measured 8.1039 sq. metres, while Shop No. UGF-98, measuring approximately 11.7216 sq. metres, was in the possession of Harsh Malhotra. The LDA's engineers stated that the shop numbers had not been marked when possession was handed over and that the possession of the two shops had apparently been interchanged.

    The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the LDA to receive the balance amount towards the allotted shop and execute the registration in favour of the complainant within two months, besides awarding ₹2,000 as litigation costs. The LDA challenged the order before the State Consumer Commission, which dismissed the appeal. The Development Authority thereafter approached the NCDRC by filing the present revision petition.

    Contentions of the LDA:

    The LDA contended that the consumer commission erred in directing it to accept only the balance principal amount, arguing that it was entitled to charge interest on the outstanding dues as the complainant had not paid the entire amount.

    The LDA also challenged the ₹5,000 costs and disputed the shop's identity, alleging that the complainant had altered the shop. It maintained that he had been allotted and given possession of Shop No. UGF-98 and was liable to pay its applicable cost.

    Observation And Decision Of The Commission

    The NCDRC observed that the main dispute concerned the identity and area of the shop allotted to the complainant and the shop actually in his possession. It directed the LDA to verify the shop's identity and measurement on the basis of the allotment letter and the Advocate Commissioner's report and determine the corresponding price accordingly.

    The Commission partly allowed the revision petition and directed the LDA to first identify the shop and its area and raise the demand accordingly. The complainant was required to pay the balance principal amount along with 6% interest, calculated from the date of possession, i.e. 19 February 2001. The LDA was directed to raise the demand within one month, and the complainant was given two months thereafter to clear the dues. Upon payment, the LDA was directed to execute the conveyance deed.

    Appearances:

    For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate

    For the Respondent: Ms. Akansha Srivastava, Advocate

    Case Title: Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority v. Bahar Akhtar

    Case No.: NC/RP/381/2022

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Praveen Mishra

    Praveen Mishra is a Correspondent at LiveLaw. He covers consumer cases and reports on matters from various High Courts. A law graduate, he has been a part of LiveLaw for more than two years.

    Next Story