NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/923/2010

S.K. KANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. H.S. BHATI

13 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 25 Feb 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/923/2010
(Against the Order dated 20/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1032/2006 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. S.K. KANSALResident of 2682, Sector - 3, FaridabadFaridabadHaryana ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough Estate Officer, Sector - 12FaridabadHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,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.

In this revision, challenge by the complainant is to the order dated 20.11.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana Panchkula modifying the order of a District Forum dated 14.02.2006, only in regard to its direction Nos. 1 and 4. Direction No. 1 was to allot specific plot No. 1956 in lieu of originally allotted plot No. 1163 L, Sector 2, Faridabad, by the respondent/ opposite party – authority to the petitioner. Part of direction No. 4 was to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of escalation in cost. It is not in dispute that petitioner was originally allotted said plot No. 1163 L, and due to certain dispute in place of this plot, alternative plot No. 1921 was allotted by the respondent authority to the petitioner. The State Commission has rightly held that the District Forum did not have the power / jurisdiction to pass order for allotment of specific plot No. 1956 in place of alternative plot No. 1921. Further, modifying direction No. 4, the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards escalation in cost has been reduced by the State Commission to Rs.10,000/-. To be only noted that in addition to this amount, the petitioner has been awarded interest on the deposited amount @ 12% per annum and also Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER