NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3612/2007

M.P. HOUSING BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIRDHARILAL - Opp.Party(s)

MR. B. S. BANTHIA

13 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29 Oct 2007

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3612/2007
(Against the Order dated 24/07/2007 in Appeal No. 323/2007 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. M.P. HOUSING BOARD THROUGH ESTATE OFFICER, SHOPPING COMPLEX, IN FRONT OF DAINIK BHASKER PRESS, INDORE ( M. P. ) ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. GIRDHARILALAH - 10, HIG, TAKSHASHILA, INDORE ( M. P. ) ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 13 Apr 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 learned counsel for petitioner.
          Respondents have chosen not to contest proceeding, despite afflux of more than a month after issuance of registered notice to them.          Hence, service of notice is presumed to be valid. After a demand of 5% for best location of house was raised by petitioner-Board, respondent allottee took matter to District Forum filing complaint and District Forum on evaluation of pleadings of parties, having accepted complaint directed petitioner-Board to refund Rs10,332/- if realised for best location of house from allottee alongwith other relief. When matter was brought in appeal, State Commission putting reliance on a ratio of decision in Revision Petition No.2305/2004, M.P. Housing Board Vs. Anil Kumar Jain, dismissed appeal of petitioner-Board affirming order of District Forum. Learned counsel for petitioner referring to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2600/2009, Estate Manager, M.P.Housing Board Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others submits that point in question is no longer resintegra as Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no error on part of Housing Board in raising 10% extra charges for corner house and 5% extra charges also for best location of the house.
          Having appreciated contentions raised and points in issue having been settled by decision of Hon Apex Court, finding of State Commission is set aside and revision petition resultantly succeeds with no order as to costs.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER