Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1264/2015

Jaipur Development Authority , Jaipur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harish Chand Gupta S/o Shiv Chand Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

Preetik Sharma

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1264/2015

 

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Harish Gupta r/o 98, Ganga Vihar Colony, Near Arjun Nagar Phatak, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 16.01.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.Rahul Khandelwal for Mr.Ptareek Shrma counsel for the appellants

Mr.Lokesh Sharma counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the

2

 

learned District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 19.3.2015 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 175 days and it has been stated in the application that matter was processed at various levels hence, delay has been occasioned but this vague averment cannot be held as reasonable and sufficient reason to condone the delay. Hence, only on this ground this appeal is liable to be rejected but as matter has been heard on merit also, it is in the fitness of the things to consider the same.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per office order deposit money was not refundable. As the complainant has filed the application with untrue facts and this was the only reason for the cancellation.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that office order is dated 21.10.2009 whereas his money has been forfeited in 2008 hence, he could not be covered by the office order Ex. 4. The Forum below has rightly held that his cancellation was

3

 

justified as he has submitted the application Ex. R 1 with the contention that his monthly income is Rs. 28,500/- where as per income returns his income was found to be less than Rs. 13,000/- per month. Hence, cancellation of allotment was justified but there is no provision to forfeit the deposit money and the appellant has wrongly relied upon the order Ex. 4 which is dated 21.10.2009 which cannot be operate retrospectively and the Forum below has rightly held so.

 

In view of the above there is no merit in the matter and it seems that the appeal has been filed without any justification just to harass the consumer hence, is dismissed with Rs.5000/- cost which should be paid to the complainant within one month from today otherwise it will also carry 9% annual interest.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm