Haryana

StateCommission

RP/89/2016

BIRENDER SINGH YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION - Opp.Party(s)

ABHISHEK YADAV

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No : 89 of 2016

Date of Institution      : 20.10.2016

Date of Decision        : 21.11.2016

 

Bijender Singh Yadav son of Sh. Vijay Singh Yadav, resident of H. No. 236, Sector-8, Alwar, Tehsil & Distt. Alwar.

                                      Petitioner- Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Ansal Housing and Construciton Ltd, through its Managing Director, Reg. Office, 15 UGF Inder Parkash 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

2.      Dy. General Managing (Marketing), Ansal Housing and Construciton Ltd. Regd. Head Office, 15, UGF Inder Parkash 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

3.      Marketing Manager, Site Office, (Project Ansal Town) Village Piwara, Sector-19, Rewari.     

                                      Respondents- Opposite Parties.

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner

                              

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Bijender Singh Yadav-complainant (petitioner herein) has filed instant revision petition against the order dated 20.09.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the execution application was dismissed as fully satisfied.

2.      Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service. The complaint was allowed vide order dated 26.11.2012 whereby the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.75,834/- alongwith interest at the rate of 21% per annum with quarterly rest from 05.10.2007 till payment besides Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   

3.      Opposite parties/judgment debtor filed First Appeal No.97 of 2013 before this Commission. The order passed by District Forum was modified to the extent that simple interest would be payable at the rate of 21% per annum on the awarded amount, instead of quarterly rests.

4.      Opposite parties preferred Revision Petition before the Hon’ble National Commission bearing Revision Petition No. 2991 of 2013. Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 16^th October, 2015 partly allowed the revision petition and modified the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the District Forum and restricted the interest from 21% to 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

5.      Opposite parties deposited the said amount calculating it at Rs.1,39,017/-, which was released to the complainant. In the execution application, the District Forum asked both the parties to file their calculations. The District Forum agreeing with the calculation filed by the opposite parties, ordered the execution application to be dismissed as fully satisfied.

6.      We have gone through the entire record. The sum of Rs.75,834/- was towards interest on the amount due and payable.  The amount deposited by the opposite parties is perfectly right as per compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble National Commission.  The District Forum did not commit any illegality or irregularity while dismissing the execution application to be fully satisfied.  There is no merit accordingly revision petition is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 21.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK