NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3323/2009

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.D. GANDHI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PRASHANT KUMAR SHARMA

20 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3323 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 12/05/2009 in Appeal No. 1575/2003 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. HUDAThrough Its. Estate Office Kurukshetra. Haryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. G.D. GANDHIR/o. 4-Patel Nagar. Behind B.P. Flou Mill Ambala Cantt. Ambala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 20 Jan 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent who appears in person. The factual backgrounds are that respondent was allotted a booth in Sector 5, Kurushetra, Haryana in an open auction on 4.10.1999. In terms of stipulations made in allotment letter possession of booth was to be offered, after completion of development work in the area. Allegedly since basic amenities had been provided, possession of booth was offered to the respondent. However facilities of pavement and lighting was to be provided only when 80% of the sector was constructed as per policy of HUDA. Grievance of respondent was that notwithstanding there being no provision of pavement, street light, drinking water, drainage etc. the petitioner charged interest on instalments from respondent. Alleging deficiency in service a consumer complaint was filed seeking direction to petitioner to provide all basic amenities and also to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on deposits made by respondent. The District Forum which came in session of the proceeding having accepted complaint directed petitioner to complete development work and provide all amenities within a period of 60 days. The HUDA was also directed to refund possession interest recovered from respondent and also to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on deposits made by respondents. In appeal the finding of District Forum wasl also affirmed by State Commission and hence this revision by HUDA. The respondent who appears in person has no longer any grievance about completion of development work around the locality and that apart in view of long pendency of litigation which he had been forced to pursue is also willing to refund the possession interest received from HUDA as per direction of District Forum and affirmed by State Commission. As far payment of 9% interest on deposits of respondent by HUDA, respondent submits that he is willing even to forego this part of the relief granted to him by lower fora. The respondent however submits that beyond all these reliefs granted by lower fora which he is willing to forego, no further interest should be charged by HUDA from him. Learned counsel for HUDA however registers his protest. We accordingly having considered hash of reliefs having been foregone by respondent direct that HUDA shall not charge any interest from respondent and with this observation this revision petition is disposed of in above terms. If any stay has been granted in proceedings, same shall stand vacated and amount deposited with State Commission shall be refunded back to petitioner Authority. We further direct that possession interest received by respondent shall be refunded to petitioner Authority within a period of two months.