Here is a court order that chronicles the 34-year long struggle of an ex-army man and his family to get possession of a small plot allotted by the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA).

In fact, when the story begins, the consumer or the applicant before the KDA is still in the army. He has a couple of years to retire and he hopes to build a small roof over his head before that happens. He therefore applies for a plot and in 1973, is allotted a site measuring 297 sq.mts costing Rs 17,820. Even though he pays Rs 10,000 towards the plot, he fails to get possession and 25 years later, he is informed that his allotment is cancelled because he failed to deposit 25 per cent of the cost of the plot.When his letters and personal visits to KDA bring forth no result, he seeks the help of the consumer court in 2001.

In 2004, the State Commission orders the KDA to allot an alternate plot at the old rate to him. Since the Commission does not award any compensation, Shukla files an appeal before the National Commission, which confirms the order of the State Commission and grants 12 per cent interest on the amount of Rs 10,000 deposited by the consumer.

But the saga does not end there. The KDA does not comply with the order, forcing the consumer to file an execution petition before the State Commission. This time, the State Commission comes up with a new interpretation of the original order and that of the apex consumer court.

While as per the original order, KDA has to give the consumer the plot at the old rate, as per the new execution order of the State Commission, the consumer has to pay Rs 3,41,853. The shock is too much for Shukla. He suffers a stroke and dies.

His wife and children then take on the battle and file a revision petition before the apex consumer court against this erroneous and illegal execution order. Holding that the State Commission has committed an error, the National Commission, in its order of May 15, this year makes it clear that the alternate plot has to be given at the price at which the original plot was allotted (RP No 2815 of 2005).

The behaviour of the KDA in this case is deplorable. But what needs to be probed is the attitude of the State Commission. Can a consumer court meant to uphold the rights of the consumer be allowed to act contrary to its mandate and to the extent that it even ignores the order of the higher consumer court?