NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/74/2011

GAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA

03 Aug 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 74 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 25/08/2010 in Appeal No. 1802/1996 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. GAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA
KM-1, New Kavi Nagar
Ghaziabad
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Through its Secretary Vikas Sadan
Ghazipur
Uttar Pradesh
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. R. KINGONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
MR. SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent :
MR. DEVESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE
FOR MS. REENA SINGH, ADVOCATE

Dated : 03 Aug 2011
ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.  The petitioner booked a flat in Housing Scheme floated by the respondent.  Registration for the Scheme was closed on 25.10.1993.  As per the brochure, the construction was to be completed as expected by the respondent, within a period of two years.  It appears that the petitioner was called upon to take possession of the house after depositing the amount as per the price quoted in the brochure  along with the enhanced amount of Rs. 80,662/-, on or before 25.11.1993.  In the meanwhile, the work of the project was stayed as per the order of the High Court and, therefore, it could not be completed by the respondent.  The stay was vacated lateron in the middle   of December, 1993.  The State Commission held that the respondent was not to be blamed for the delay caused in construction work.  It was for such reason that the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum regarding grant of interest @ 18% p.a.  Though the State Commission disposed of the appeal with certain modification, the direction relating to completion of construction of work within a period of three months remained intact.  Counsel now submits that possession was delivered on 30.06.1997.  Considering the compliance of the direction, we do not find any merit in the present petition.  However, it is clarified that the petitioner will be entitled to receive interest on the deposited amount @ 18% p.a. from the date of vacating of the stay by the High Court i.e., from 16.12.1993 till delivery of possession i.e. 30.06.1997.  With this clarification, the petition is dismissed.

 
......................J
V. R. KINGONKAR
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
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.