NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 449 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 16/12/2009 in Appeal No. 74/2009 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. BRIJ BALA NANDWANIResident of House No. 3265, Sector 21-DChandigarh
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. HUDA & ANR.Through its Chief Administrator, Sector - 6Panchkula2. THE ESTATE OFFICERHaryana Urban Development AuthorityGurgaon
...........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 : 01 Apr 2010
ORDER
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Nandwani, authorized representative/husband of petitioner Brij Bala Nandwani on admission. The factual matrix are that petitioner was allotted plot No.371 in Sector 21, Gurgaon on 08.11.1985 by respondent-authority. After making initial deposit of 25% of earnest money, residual 75% too was paid in installments. As delivery of possession of plot No.371 could not be effective due to pendency of litigation before Honble High Court, an alternative plot bearing No.320 K in Sector 1, Gurgaon was allotted to petitioner on same price. The additional demand raised against petitioner was undisputedly paid by petitioner, whereupon delivery of possession was offered but he could not accept the same, there being encroachment on site allotted to her. A consumer complaint too came to be filed with District Forum which while accepting complaint, directed respondent-authority to deliver possession of plot No.320 K and if it was not feasible, then in that event alternative plot in same Sector with developed surroundings. Respondent was also saddled with liability to pay interest @ 12% per annum on deposits made by petitioner. Respondent was also directed not to charge interest or penalty or if charged earlier then to refund to petitioner. Litigation cost of Rs.2000/- too was also awarded. Appeal filed by HUDA against aforesaid finding of District Forum with some insignificant modification was dismissed. Petitioner too filed First Appeal No.2772 of 2000 against aforesaid order dated 17.10.2006 of District Forum, which was disposed of by State Commission on 08.08.2008 holding, that in view of following observations made by Honble Apex Court in Case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007), 6 SCC, 711, the appellant, in view of delivery of plot during pendency of complaint at the agreed price and availing of appreciation of price of house, was not entitled to interest on the price paid. The following observations were made by Honble Apext Court:- 13. As already noticed, where the grievance is one of delay in delivery of possession, and the development authority delivers the house during the pendency of the complaint at the agreed price, and such delivery is accepted by the allottee complainant, the question of awarding any interest on the price paid by him from the date of deposit to date of delivery of possession, does not arise. The allottee who had the benefit of appreciation of price of the house, is not entitled to interest on the price paid. When matter came before District Forum in execution proceeding District Forum in view of finding of State Commission in First Appeal No.2772 of 2006 rendered on 08.08.2008 holding petitioner not entitled to interest on deposits in view of observations made by Honble Apex Court negated contentions raised by petitioner in execution proceeding about grant of interest. Now, grievance of petitioner had been that once District Forum found petitioner entitled to pay interest @ 12% per annum on deposits made by him in its order dated 17.10.2000, it was not permissible to District Forum to modify its own order, which was impliedly a review of order. We find that what is being urged on behalf of petitioner was a mistaken concept as a District Forum had not modified its previous order, but in execution proceeding passed order in view of finding recorded by State Commission in appeal. There are other issues too which need considerations. Though petitioner alleges that he had not been given possession of alternative plot No.320 K on pretext of there being encroachment over the site, on direction of District Forum an affidavit was filed by HUDA, stating that there was no encroachment on site and delivery of possession too was given to petitioner on 27.012.2009. That apart, in execution proceeding the authorized representative of petitioner gave statement before District Forum that he was satisfied on getting Rs.3,00,000/- from HUDA and execution proceeding be dropped and District Forum accordingly recorded its finding on 21.12.2009 that as a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been paid to petitioner as interest, it was agreeable by petitioner that execution proceeding be disposed of. Hence, we find grievance of petitioner having been adequately redressed, he has no good cause to reiterate the issue once again. There being no merit, revision petition in the circumstances, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
