IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE 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 respondent.

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.

....2/-

- 2 -

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.

....3/-

- 3 -

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.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, November 07, 2008.