NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2312/2009

MAJOR SATJIT SINGH GANDHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. HEMEN AGGARWAL & SAVI AGGARWAL

29 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 01 Jul 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2312/2009
(Against the Order dated 10/02/2009 in Appeal No. 456/2005 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. MAJOR SATJIT SINGH GANDHIResident of H. No.1531, Sector - 36, ChandigarhU.T. CHANDIGARH ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough Estate Officer HissarHARYANA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr. RAjat Sharma, adv. for MR. HEMEN AGGARWAL & SAVI AGGARWAL, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 Jul 2009
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.

          Delay of 24 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Complainant is in revision before us.

          Petitioner/complainant was allotted plot No.1688, Sector-14 P, HIssar.  He paid a sum of Rs.1,16,600/- between 04.8.1996                      to  04.1.2002  towards  the  price  of  the  plot.       According to the

 

-2-

petitioner/complainant, the respondent was supposed to deliver the possession within 90 days but the possession was given in the year 2002.  He filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking interest on the deposited amount for delayed delivery of possession @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount till its realization.  Compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was also sought.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint stating therein that the letter of possession had been sent to the petitioner on 1st May, 1998 at his Chandigarh address where he was residing.   Contention of the petitioner that he did not receive the letter of possession, was not accepted.  District Forum came to the conclusion that since the letter of possession had been issued on 1st May, 1998, the respondent was not liable either to pay any compensation or any interest on the deposited amount.

          Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.


-3-

            We agree with the view taken by the foras below that the petitioner was neither entitled to any compensation nor the interest for the delayed delivery of possession because the petitioner had been offered possession vide letter dated 1st May, 1998.  Revision petition is dismissed



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER