NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2392/2008

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOPENDRA KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN

16 Jul 2008

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02 Jun 2008

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIRevision Petition(RP) No. RP/2392/2008
(Against the Order dated 16/01/2008 in Appeal No. 106/2008 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS Near Navyug Market, Vikas PathGhaziabadUttar Pradesh2. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYNear Navyug Market, Vikas PathGhaziabadUttar Pradesh3. THE SECRETARY, GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYNear Navyug Market, Vikas PethGhaziabadUttar Pradesh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. GOPENDRA KUMAR Resident of 6-H/124, Sector-5, Rajendra Nagar, SahibabadGhaziabadUttar Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :For MR. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN ,(Mr. Aneesh Mittal for Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain, ADv.)
For the Respondent :

Dated : 16 Jul 2008
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 Ld. counsel for the petitioner.  In our view, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for interference. 

          Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant took possession of the flat on 4.5.1996 by paying the full amount demanded by the GDA.  The full amount was of Rs.4,50,000/- for purchase of the said flat.  After lapse of 6 years, the GDA demanded additional amount of Rs.3,86,400/- on the ground that from 18.10.1988 to the date of allotment, the complainant was required to pay interest @ 18% p.a.

          In our view, this is totally baseless.  It was the duty of the concerned officers to have the exact costing worked out at the relevant time and, therefore, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

          Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

 



......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER