NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3928/2010

M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. JAGDISH SINGH RAJPUT - Opp.Party(s)

MR. D.K. SINGH

09 Dec 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3928 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 22/07/2010 in Appeal No. 270/2006 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR.
Through, Executive Engineer, M.P. Housing Board, Division No. 2, Pt. Deen Dayal Nagar
Gwalior
Madhya Pradesh
2. ESTATE OFFICER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD
Division No. 2
Gwalior
Madhya Pradesh
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DR. JAGDISH SINGH RAJPUT
R/o. B.H. 41, Pt. Deen Dayal Nagar
Gwalior
Madhya Pradesh
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. D.K. SINGH
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 09 Dec 2010
ORDER

Respondent was allotted HIG house by the petitioner for which he paid Rs.2,42,210/- towards the cost of the house and Rs.11,910 towards interest and late fee.  On occupation, respondent found certain defects for which he spent Rs.50,000/-.  He had to pay Rs.60,000/- in excess for registration of the house as circle rate by that time had gone up.

 

 

-2-

          District Forum partly accepted the complaint filed by the respondent.  The claim towards registration charges was rejected and the claim for deficiency in service was allowed in the following terms:

“Thus, by accepting the claim of the complainant the respondents are ordered that they pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- for damages and remove the deficiencies of the house and if they are unable to remove the deficiencies then pay an amount of Rs.72,000/- to the complainant.  Respondents would also pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint case.  The order is to be complied within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the same.  The case be closed.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

 

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner as well as the respondent filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  Respondent pressed his claim for the grant of registration charges whereas the petitioner filed the appeal for setting aside the order of the District Forum.  State Commission by the impugned order has dismissed both the appeals.

 

-3-

          Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not press his revision petition for damages awarded towards repairs.  If that be so, nothing remains in this revision petition because the fora below have not ordered payment of registration charges.  Dismissed. 

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
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.