HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)
MR. PAWAN SHARMA & U.M. TRIPATHI
26 Mar 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2224 OF 2008
(Against the Order dated 12/02/2008 in Appeal No. 1512/2002 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. SHANTI DEVI & ORSResident Bhattu Kalan, HissarHaryana2. RAM KISHANResident of Bhattu Kalan, HissarHaryana3. SURENDER KUMARResident of Bhattu Kalan, HissarHaryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through State Officer,HissarHaryana
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 26 Mar 2010
ORDER
No one appears even on second pass over on behalf of respondent. We have heard authorized representative of petitioner. Factual matrix are that plot bearing No.DSS-210, Sector Town Center, Mandi Township Bhattu, was allotted to petitioners by respondent authority on 16.09.1991 for consideration of Rs.6,50,500/-. Subsequently, offer of possession was communicated to petitioners by respondent on 12.10.1995, followed by respondent raising demand for interest and penalty over instalments due with petitioners. Be that as it may, petitioners completed construction over site and moved respondent for issuance of occupation certificate on 04.10.1999. Aggrieved with demand raised by respondent for payment of interest and penalty, a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum. Though complaint was resisted by respondent authority, District Forum having overruled contentions raised by respondent, while accepting complaint granted substantive relief to petitioners. When matter came in appeal before State Commission, State Commission both on merit and also complaint being time barred, unsuited petitioners. Contentions are raised on behalf of petitioners that though local Commissioner too had been appointed in the matter, to submit report about development work in locality, State Commission having over looked observations made by Local Commissioner, reversed well reasoned order of District Forum and unsuited petitioners. Finding of Local Commissioner, makes a bald observations about there being no development work in locality and no system developed for drainage of water. Redeeming feature of case was that even though plot was allotted in the year 1991, offer of possession was also made to complainant on 12.10.1995 and he also made construction over site, despite there being no development work, as alleged, by authority. That apart it was noticed by State Commission that even though offer of possession was made to petitioners as early as in the year 1995, it was not before 1999 that complaint was filed before District Forum. Having gone through finding of State Commission, we find no fault in the order of State Commission. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. Later on respondent appeared and she has been apprised of order. . (S.K.NAIK) MEMBER Sj.2
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
