NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3774/2006

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMRIT PAL KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

MRS. RACHNA JOSHI ISSAR

11 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3774 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 25/08/2006 in Appeal No. 898/2006 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.THROUGH IRS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR , PUDA , BHAWAN SECTOR , 62. S.A.S NAGAR DISTT S.S.A NAGAR - ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. AMRIT PAL KAURW/O. SH AVTAR SINGH R/O. H. NO. 4310. SECTOR, 68. DISTT , S.A.S. NAGAR ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MRS. RACHNA JOSHI ISSAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 11 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

No one appeared on behalf of the respondent even though the respondent has been duly served and the acknowledgement due of the registered notice sent to the respondent is in Part-II file. Heard counsel for the petitioner who has placed before us judgement of the Apex Court in HUDA Vs. Sunita [(2005) 2 SCC 479] and the judgement of this Commission in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Vs. Punjab Khapatkar Sangh in Revision Petition No.3107 of 2005 decided on 16.11.2006 wherein aforesaid judgement was relied. In this case, the petitioner had challenged the demand extension fee of Rs.43,089/- after the same had actually been deposited by him. The fora below have quashed the said demand of extension fee. However, the Apex Court in the case of HUDA Vs. Sunita (supra) has laid down that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of demand of composition fee and extension fee made by HUDA from the respondent/complainant. In view of this, the orders of the fora below cannot be sustained and are required to be set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed the orders of the fora are hereby set aside with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER