lOMoARcPSD|11013077

BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.

(Under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

(Against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer

Dispute Redressal commission, U.P. at Lucknow in Appeal No. 1084/2016 )

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Indira Gaur through attorney Ramanand Prasad ...Petitioner

Vs

Lucknow Development Authority & others …Respondent

 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the

State Consumer Forum Lucknow, U.P. in Appeal no. 1084/2016 styled as

Lucknow development authority and others Vs Mrs. Indira Gaur through

Ramanand Prasad wherein the Ld. State commission amended the order of

the District Forum in complaint no. …….

Petitioner herein filed the complaint to set aside the order of the Ld. State

Commission passed on 29.10.2018 which amended the previous order of Ld.

District commission passed on 28.10.2015 in complaint no. 165/2013 herein

the first appeal was registered by the respondents before the state

commission which was registered as appeal no 1084/2016 and order passed

by the Ld. State commission on 29.10.2018, the petitioner is aggrieved with

that order.

Hence the present second appeal.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF DATES

28.02.2013 Submission of Complaint letter.

28.10.2015 Decision passed by the Ld. District commission.

 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

11.05.2016 The appellant received copy of the judgment

happened. (Annexure- A).

.05.2016 Completion of appeal formalities submission

before the Hon’ble State commission.

29.10.2018 Decision passed by the Ld. State commission.

(Annexure- B).

05.11.2018 Petitioner received copy of judgment happen

Completion of appeal formalities submission

before the Hon’ble National commission.

 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.

(Under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

(Against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer
Dispute Redressal commission, U.P. at Lucknow in Appeal No. 1084/2016 )

MEMO OF THE PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mrs. Indira Gaur, through attorney Rmanand Prasad S/o Mr. Singar

Prasad R/o 4/651 Sector H Jankipuram, Lucknow.

2. Mrs. Indira Gaur W/o Mr. Prashant Gaur R/o 10-A Ashok marg, Lucknow.

…..Petitioner/complainant

Vs

1. Lucknow Development Authority New building Vipin Khand Gomti

Nagar Lucknow through Vice-President

2. Lucknow Development Authority New building Vipin Khand Gomti

Nagar Lucknow through Secretary ..Respondent/opponent

Filed on: Filed By:

New Delhi
 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.

(Under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

(Against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer
Dispute Redressal commission, U.P. at Lucknow in Appeal No. 1084/2016 )

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mrs. Indira Gaur, through attorney Rmanand Prasad S/o Mr. Singar
Prasad R/o 4/651 Sector H Jankipuram, Lucknow.

2. Mrs. Indira Gaur W/o Mr. Prashant Gaur R/o 10-A Ashok marg, Lucknow.
…..Petitioner/complainant

VS

1. Lucknow Development Authority New building Vipin Khand Gomti

Nagar Lucknow through Vice-President

2. Lucknow Development Authority New building Vipin Khand Gomti

Nagar Lucknow through Secretary ..Respondent/opponent

REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 21(B) OF THE COMSUMER

PROTECTION ACT-1986

To,

The Hon’ble President and

His Companion Members of the National Commission

 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

The complaint of the petitioner above named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

The petitioner by way of present revision petition is challenging the order dated

29.10.2018 passed by the Ld. State consumer Forum Lucknow, U.P. in appeal no

1084/2016 styled as Lucknow Development Authority and others Vs Mrs. Indira Gaur

through attorney Ramanand Prasad wherein the Ld. State Consumer Forum amended the

order of Ld. District consumer Forum dated 28.10.2015 in complaint no 165/2013.

(Annexure- B).

The facts given rise the present Revision Petition are as follow:

1. That the petitioner no 1 deposited Rs.-5000/- in the respondent’s account through

challan dated 31.10.1989 for the registration to get Mini LIG home under

Jankipurm Lucknow scheme.

2. That on the basis of the above registration building no 4/651 sector H Jankipuram

Lucknow, was allotted to the petitioner no 1 on 16.04.1992 by lottery and the

allotment letter was issued on 26.11.1992.

3. That the price of the said building in the above allotment letter was estimated Rs.-

48000/- and the instruction for the payment was also given in the same allotment

letter that was that the amount have to paid in 4 quarterly installment of Rs.-

2250/-.

4. That the petitioner deposited the entire amount between 28.02.1992 to 27.08.1993

and never delayed.

 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

5. That the petitioner was unable to maintain her property so she gave a registered

Power of attorney to her trustworthy Ramanand Prasad S/o Mr. Singar Prasad R/o

5/132 Vikas Nagar Lucknow present address is 4/651 Sector H Jankipuram

Lucknow, on the date 07.02.2000 and she gave all the rights related to the

building to him. After 07.02.2000 all the installments for the maintenance and in

the authority were deposited by Ramanand Prasad.

6. That the opposite party issued a letter dated 17.11.2007 demanding a sum of Rs.-

8598 from the petitioner in respect of balance of premium value, freehold fee,

water sewer fee and other fee and instructed for the deposition that the amount of

Rs.-26454/-must be paid by the date 01.01.2008 and the amount or Rs.-50905/-

must be paid by the date 15.02.2008, which was paid by the attorney on time and

there was no balance rest on the name of the petitioner.

7. That after this attorney of petitioner no 1 received a letter dated26.11.2010

demanding a general stamp paper worth Rs.-11700/- and a affidavit on Rs.-10

stamp paper in respect of registration of the building in the joint name of husband

and wife and to deposit water sewer fee and difference of water sewer fee.

8. After that attorney of petitioner no 1 Ramanand Prasad many times visited the

respondent’s department but he always got only one answer that the file was lost

and the registration only be completed after the recovery of that file. In this regard

attorney Ramanand Prasad sent letters to the respondent’s department dated

06.10.2010 and 24.12.2010 but no action has been taken by the staff of the

respondent’s department.
 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

9. That attorney also requested for the duplicate file on the behalf of the document

which he has related to the said property but no action has been taken.

10. Being aggrieved the judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the U.P.

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal no

1084/2016 the petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble commission in its Appellate

jurisdiction on the following amongst other grounds which are in the alternative

and without prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS
The petitioner craves the indulgence of this Hon’ble Commission to grant

direction amongst other grounds which are set out hereinafter without prejudice to

one another:

A. Because the judgment passed by the Ld. State Commission is erroneous because

of a mistake of facts and not maintainable in the eyes of law.

B. Because the Ld. State Commission did not consider the negligence and mal

intention of the respondent’s department, under which they did not even appear

before the Ld. District Forum.

C. Because the Ld. State forum not considered the fact that the respondent in their

appeal no 1084/2016 said that they issued a letter regarding to complete

registration formalities dated 26.11.2010 and after that attorney Ramanand Prasad

not done any kind of correspondence but there were two letters were sent to the

respondent’s department from the attorney after that, dated 24.12.2010 and

24.05.2011(registered post).
 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

D. Because Ld. State forum not considered that Ramanand Prasad is the holder of

power of attorney and principle entitled him all the rights regarding the building

and all services provided by the respondent. Therefore he is also a party in this

case.

E. Because Ld. State forum not considered in deciding the case the judgment of

Supreme court in Suraj Lamp and industries (P) Vs State of Haryana and others

oct 2011 in which supreme court held that the General Power of Attorney

authorized the agent to do all the act on behalf of the principle. So Ramanand

Prasad is a party in this case and has the cause for complaint.

F. Because in furtherance of the letter issued by the respondent’s department dated

26.11.2010 when attorney visited to the department for registration he

consistently got the answer that file has been lost and by this he faced physical

and mental pain.

G. Because the petitioner is entitled to get the relief according to the order of district

forum the revision petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment and

order deserve to be set aside on the ground of want for justice.

PRAYER
The petitioner therefore prays:

1. That this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to examine the records and proceedings

in Appeal no 1084/2016 decided by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow and considering the legality of the judgment and order dated

29.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission therein set aside.

 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

2. For such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.

Filed on: Filed By:

New Delhi

BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.

(Under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

(Against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer

Dispute Redressal commission, U.P. at Lucknow in Appeal No. 1084/2016 )

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Indira Gaur through attorney Ramanand Prasad ...Petitioner

Vs

Lucknow Development Authority & others …Respondent

 lOMoARcPSD|11013077

CERTIFICATE

Certified that I have filed certified/attested true copies of the orders passed by the

Fora below and all pleadings in the complaint and the evidence filed by both the

parties, oral and documentary.

Filed on: Filed By:

New Delhi