NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4027/2006

VIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

PRADEEP GAUR

02 Dec 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4027 OF 2006
 
(Against the Order dated 23/05/2006 in Appeal No. 2295/1998 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. VIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA
1571. SECTOR., 5. R.K. PURAM
NEW DELHI
-
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GHAZIABAD THROUGH , SECRETARY
CHANIIRMAN
-
...........Respondent(s)

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

For the Petitioner :PRADEEP GAUR
For the Respondent :
MR. DEvesh kumar, ADv.

Dated : 02 Dec 2010
ORDER

Complainant/petitioner applied for a MIG flat in Pratap Vihar Residential Scheme.  He deposited Rs.70,000/- including the registration fee and installments with the opposite party.  The respondent offered possession of the plot but the petitioner refused to

-2-

take the possession because of alleged lack of public facilities/amenities at the site.  Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the respondent to refund the deposited amount along with the interest.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund the amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. within two months along with Rs.2,000/- towards mental pain and suffering and costs of litigation.  In case of failure to pay the amount within two months, the interest payable was to be 21% p.a. from the date of deposit till the payment.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount along with interest after deductions as per rules.

          Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition seeking enhancement of compensation.

          Respondent had offered possession of the plot to the petitioner and it is the petitioner who did not take the possession of the plot

-3-

because of alleged lack of public facilities/amenities at the site.  Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.  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.