NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3048/2009

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

DABAR INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. REENA SINGH

14 Sep 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 17 Aug 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3048/2009
(Against the Order dated 02/12/2008 in Appeal No. 2689/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough Its Vice Chairaman Vikaspath Ghaziabad ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. DABAR INDIA LTD.8/3, Asaf Ali Road,NEW DELHI ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MS. REENA SINGH
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 14 Sep 2009
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.

          These revision petitions have been filed with a delay of                98 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 consumer foras are required to decide the cases within 90 days and in case some evidence is required to be taken, within 150 days.  The delay of 98 days, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the circumstances, cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause for delay in filing the revision petition.  The reason for delay is that the file was moving from table to table.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condonation of delay.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed on ground of ‘Delay’.

          We have considered the cases on merits as well.  Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had allotted 20 flats out of turn to M/s Dabar India Limited for Low Income Group category for allotment to its employees.  Cost of the house was fixed at Rs.58,000/-.  After payment of Rs.58,000/- (which was estimated cost), respondent applied for execution of Sale Deed.  Instead of executing the Sale Dee, petitioner vide its letter dated 29.4.2003 after a period of 7 years of handing over of possession, raised the    and demanded additional amount of Rs.40,600/-  from the employees.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed a complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum allowed the complaint and held that the petitioner was not entitled to the additional amount/payment after lapse of 7 years of handing over of the possession.  Accordingly, payment of additional amount of Rs.46,600/- was quashed and petitioner was directed to execute the Sale Deed.  Rs.500/- were ordered to be paid by way of costs.  Order passed by the District Forum has been affirmed by the State Commission.

          We agree with the view taken by the foras below that the petitioner was not entitled to raise the demand for additional amount after lapse of over 7 years, the same being totally unjustified.  Dismissed.

 

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER