NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2022/2010

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUNA BHANDARI & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANIL K. SHARMA

05 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2022 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 25/02/2010 in Appeal No. 86/2008 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough CEO, 7, Race Course RoadIndoreMadhya Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ARUNA BHANDARI & ORS.R/o. Civil Dispensary Gandhi SagarMandsaurMadhya Pradesh2. CHAIRMAN NAV BHARAT GRAH NIRMAN SANSTHAMaryadit, 13, Imli Bazar, Krishna ComplexIndoreMadhya Pradesh3. CONVENOR, VIGYAN NAGAR PLOT PURCHASE SOCIETY25, Swastik NagarIndoreMadhya Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. ANIL K. SHARMA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 05 Jul 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.

In order to facilitate allotment of plot to its members, respondent No.2 executed an agreement with petitioner-authority. The plot was to be allotted to the members on payment of premium, development charges and lease -2- rent. After land was not allotted to respondent No.1 despite deposit of sum, a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum and District Forum on analyzing evidence directed respondent No.1 to deposit the balance amount with development charges with petitioner-authority which will execute sale deed on allotting plot on cost of respondent No.1. Admittedly, the petitioner authority did not assail this finding of the District Forum in appeal. After execution proceeding commenced, the District Forum directed the petitioner to furnish details of lease, rent and development charges to facilitate respondent No.1 to make payment of the balance amount. The aggrieved petitioner is in revision. The contentions raised are that even certain directions, which were not part of the basic order passed by District Forum in the complaint case, were incorporated in the order of the execution order, which were not permissible in law as executing Court was not required to go beyond the decree. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner however does not impress me as no such directions which could change the nature of the basic order passed by the District Forum in complaint case were incorporated in the order of the executing Court as only direction given to the petitioner -3- was to furnish details of lease, rent and development charges to facilitate respondent No.1 to make payment of the balance sum. The other grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner-authority was liable to allot plot of land to respondent No.3 only on receipt of the balance amount. In this backdrop, while modifying the order of the State Commission, it is directed that the petitioner-authority will comply with the order of the District Forum on receipt of the balance due with respondent No.3. Revision petition in terms of abovesaid modification is disposed of.



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER