NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4444/2009

SHAM LAL MEHTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. ANIRUDH KUSH & CO.

04 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4444 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 06/08/2009 in Appeal No. 1628/2005 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. SHAM LAL MEHTAR/Assand, o H. No. 647/III Thermal Colony, Panipat ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. HUDASector-6, Panchkula2. THE ESTATE OFFICER, Haryana Urban Development Authority,Sonipat ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. DR. P.D. SHENOY ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 04 Jan 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.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

The complaint filed by the petitioner was allowed. However, on appeal filed by the opposite party, the State Commission had allowed the

-2-

 

appeal and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint was time barred by limitation and that on merits the complainant had failed to prove his case. The State Commission found that the complainant was offered possession of the flat vide memo No.22527 dated 29.10.2002 and the complaint was filed on 21.12.2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the complaint was, in fact, filed on 12.1.2005. Even then filing of the complaint beyond two years could not be entertained under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the finding of the State Commission cannot be interfered with. Even on merits the State Commission found that the other residents in the area had already constructed their plots and the complainant had failed to prove that there was no development in the area. In fact, in the reply filed by the opposite parties they had given details of the expenditure on water supply, sewerage, SWD as also roads.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

 



......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................DR. P.D. SHENOYMEMBER