NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2672/2006

MADHURIMA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

10 Aug 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2672 OF 2006
 
(Against the Order dated 15/04/2006 in Appeal No. 1119/2003 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. MADHURIMA GUPTA
C/O. SURESH KUMAR , GUPAR 103. MUKHERJEE , NAGAR , DR, MUKHERHEE NAGAR ,
DELHI
110009
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN INA
NEW DELHI
110009
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
Authorized Representative
For the Respondent :
Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate

Dated : 10 Aug 2011
ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER    

Heard authorized representative appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Counsel for the Respondent.  The District Forum had ordered payment of 10% interest for the period 10.8.1994 to 10.7.1995 on the amount deposited as also to refund the sum of Rs.8,879/- being wrong deduction of TDS, with 15% interest thereon and Rs.5000/- towards compensation for harassment and costs.    This order was challenged by the Respondent/Opposite Party before the State Commission.  The Complainant did not challenge the said order. 

The State Commission without any sufficient or  proper justification interfered with the order of the District Forum by setting aside the said order and reducing award of interest from 15% to 9%.

          Admittedly, though the bulk letters were issued on 10.8.1994 for firth and final demand, yet the letter in respect of the same was issued to the Complainant only on 17.7.1995.  The State Commission had erred in setting aside 10% interest awarded by the District Forum for the period 10.8.1994 to 10.7.1995.  The State Commission was also not justified in setting aside the sum of Rs.5000/- awarded towards compensation for harassment and cost  Likewise the State Commission erred in hold that the grievance of the appellant (petitioner before us) appeared to be justified so far as refund of Rs.8,879/-  was concerned in as much as District Forum had given sound reasons for refund of the said amount. The State Commission was also not justified in reduction of the interest from 15% to 9% on the said amount of Rs.8,879/-.  In view of this, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored.  The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.  The payments in terms of District Forum’s order  be made by the Respondent to the Petitioner within a period of 8 weeks, failing which  the entire amount payable shall carry interest @ 15% per annum from the date of this order.

          Dasti copy of order be given to the parties.

 

 
......................J
R. K. BATTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
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.