NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2822/2010

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. VINOD PANT

23 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 01/07/2010 in Appeal No. 380/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. ASHOK KUMAR GOEL5-A/3-A, Ansari Road, Darya GanjNew DelhiDelhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough Vice Chairman, DDA, Vikas SadanNew DelhiDelhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. VINOD PANT
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Aug 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.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of the fact that caveat has been filed by the present Petitioner, notice on stay was not given and the State Commission passed the order of stay of the impugned order. We had asked learned Counsel for the Petitioner to satisfy us as to what difference would have been made if the notice has been issued and we gave an opportunity to him to satisfy us whether the order in the circumstances could not be passed by the State Commission. The District Forum had directed allotment of MIG Category Flat on any floor at Dwarka, Delhi at the prevailing cost. In fact, the Complainant had registered himself for the MIG Flat in the year 1979 and Opposite Party had issued Registration Certificate No. 33640 dated 12.6.1980. The flat, in question was allotted in the draw held on 31.7.2002. The case of the Complainant is that he had not received the allotment-cum-demand letter sent by the Opposite Party. The Complainant wrote letters on 1.4.2005 and 12.9.2005 and 29.9.2005 in respect of the same. The District Forum held that Opposite Party had failed to file even the receipt of the speed post/registered letter sent to the Complainant. It is in these circumstances that order, in question, has been passed by the State Commission pending admission of appeal. The appeal has been listed for admission on 27.10.2010 and in the meantime, operation of the impugned order has been stayed. Learned Counsel was not able to satisfy us that the impugned order calls for interference. In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the State Commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER