NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2185/2010

WING COMMANDER ANAND VIKRAM PETHIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMMISSIONER M.P. HOUSING BOARD PARYAVAS - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJSHEKHAR RAO

09 Feb 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1426 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 26/02/2010 in Appeal No. 296/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. M.P. HOUSING BOARD
Through Mr. P.K. Mujumdar Executive Manager, M.P. Housing Board Division-II
Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh)
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. AIR VICE MARSHAL ANAND VIKRAM PETHIA
R/o. HX-5 E-7, Extension, Arera Colony, Shahpura
Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh)
...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2185 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 26/02/2010 in Appeal No. 296/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. WING COMMANDER ANAND VIKRAM PETHIA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. COMMISSIONER M.P. HOUSING BOARD PARYAVAS
...........Respondent(s)

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

For the Petitioner :
For M.P. Housing Board : Mr. Mahabir Singh, Senior Adv.
with Brig. M.L. Khatter, Advocate
For the Respondent :
For the Complainant : Air Vice Marshal A. Vikram Pethia,
Attorney of the Complainant

Dated : 09 Feb 2012
ORDER

PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL)

 

1.       We have heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, Senior Advocate  assisted by Brig. M.L. Khatter, Advocate, representing the M.P. Housing Board and attorney of the complainant Sqn. Leader Anand Vikram Pethia, in these revision petitions and have considered their submissions. 

2.       The case has a somewhat checkered history. This is the second round of litigation before this Commission, the matter having been earlier decided by this Commission vide an order dated 04.11.2009 passed by this Commission.  The said order has become final as neither party challenged the same.  However, when it came to the execution of the said order, the opposite party-M.P. Housing Board took up the plea that the 1 km. jogging track, as was envisaged and as directed, could not be prepared as it was not feasible to do so, the entire land earmarked  for  the  society  having been  utilized, and no land left in the

-3-

 

periphery to construct the 1 km. long jogging park.  However, it is pointed out that a jogging park of a lesser area i.e. approximately 350 sq. meters has been carved out and is available on the spot.  That apart, a proposal marked as Annexure-A has been made from the site of the opposite party-M.P. Housing Board to provide certain machineries and heath equipment relating to gym at a cost of Rs.5.00 Lakhs approximately in lieu of deficient length of jogging track. 

3.       Attorney of the complainant Squadron Leader Anand Vikram Pethia states that in view of the non-feasibility of the jogging track of 1 km. length, he under instructions is prepared to accept a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, which may be given to the Residents Welfare Association of the flat owners of the Platinum Park, in addition to the proposal of making available the further machineries and health equipment in the gym.   

4.       Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party-M.P. Housing Board, under instructions states that a sum of Rs.2,17,000/- has been deposited in the District Forum in compliance with the directions of the National Commission.

5.       Having noted down the above submissions of both the parties and realizing  that  it is not  feasible  to  provide a jogging  track of 1 km. long

-4-

 

and that a track of 350 sq. meters has already been provided and further that the opposite party-M.P. Housing Board has undertaken to provide machineries and health equipments worth Rs.5.00 Lakhs, as has been shown in Annexure-A, we direct that the opposite party-M.P. Housing Board shall provide the machineries and health equipments mentioned in Annexure-A within a period of two months from today.  Besides that the sum of Rs.2,17,000/- lying in the District Forum shall also be disbursed in favour of the Residents Welfare Association of Platinum Park forthwith.  The amount received by the Residents Welfare Association shall be utilized for the welfare activities of the association.  This arrangement we consider appropriate in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.  The order of the State Commission stands modified in the above terms. 

6.       The revision petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

 

 
......................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.