NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4694/2010

BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAVRI BAI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. J.P. SHARMA

10 Feb 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4694 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 17/09/2010 in Appeal No. 1957/2007 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Pragati Bhawan, Press Complex, M.P. Nagar
Bhopal
Madhya Pradesh
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. BHAVRI BAI
W/o. Late Shri Ranjeet Singh Chouhan, C/o Dr. B.S. Chouhan
Post and Town Suthaliya
Rajgarh (Biora) M.P.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Advocate

Dated : 10 Feb 2012
ORDER

 

PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL)

 

1.       Aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the State Commission), Appeal No. 1957 of 2007, Bhopal Development Authority, the original opposite party in the complaint, has filed the present petition.  The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Bhopal Development Authority firstly for allotting an alternate plot having a lesser area and not refunding the difference in price and secondly for having levied some surcharge on the respondent/complainant due to the delay in depositing the amount by the petitioner/Bhopal Development Authority to the State Government.

2.       We have heard Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bhopal Development Authority, and Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and have considered their submissions.

3.       The facts not being in dispute that the area of the alternate plot allotted to the respondent/complainant was short by 61 sq. feet, the respondent/complainant was entitled to the refund of the corresponding price in respect of the lesser area. 

4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bhopal Development Authority submits that the direction of the fora below to refund the amount of difference of land between two plots to be fixed by the Collector is not justified and since the petitioner/Bhopal Development Authority had charged for the price at a particular rate, the refund can only be ordered on the same rate.  We find force in this contention.

5.       We, therefore, direct the petitioner/Bhopal Development Authority to refund the price of 61 sq. feet to respondent/complainant at the same rate at which they have allotted the plot to the respondent/complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of deposit till the amount is refunded.  The orders of the fora below shall stand  modified in the  above terms.

6.       Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of.  At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/Bhopal Development Authority submits that a sum of Rs.16,950/- has been deposited in the District Forum pursuant to the direction of the National Commission.  The said amount will be taken into consideration.  The awarded amount as per the order of this Commission shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant and the balance shall be returned to the petitioner/Bhopal Development Authority.

 

 
......................J
R. C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER

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.