NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2207/2010

MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARINDER PAL SINGH BHATIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. GAURAV DHAMA & MR. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH

16 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2207 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 16/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1112/1993 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough its SecretaryMeerutUttar Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. HARINDER PAL SINGH BHATIAR/o: M H-49, Pallav PuramMeerutUttar Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. GAURAV DHAMA & MR. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 16 Jul 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.

          Complainant/respondent was successful in the draw of lots for allotment of house.  Petitioner handed over possession to the respondent.  Respondent paid Rs.3,46,000/- at the time of taking the possession.  Later on, petitioner, by letter dated 15.10.1991, raised a demand of an additional sum of Rs.90,000/- besides penalty of Rs.3,171/- for the late payment of the instalments.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 14.6.1993, allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal.  It was held that the petitioner is entitled to the recovery of the additional sum of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.3,171/- demanded by it.  However, the State Commission declined to grant any interest on the outstanding amount for the duration of the litigation.  Petitioner was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent on receipt of the sum of Rs.93,171/-.

          State Commission, in its discretion, has declined to award the interest during the pendency of the litigation.  The demand was raised by the petitioner after handing over the possession and after receiving the entire amount for the house.  This was a discretionary relief which the State Commission has declined to grant in the peculiar facts of the case.  The same does not call for any interference.  Dismissed.

 

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER