NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4137/2009

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEERA BAI & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. R.S. BADHRAN

11 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4137 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 17/07/2009 in Appeal No. 1538/2004 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. HUDAThrough Its Estate Office Gurgaon ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MEERA BAI & ANR.R/o.House No. 10-A. Nianwali Colony. Gurgaon Haryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. R.S. BADHRAN
For the Respondent :IN PERSON

Dated : 11 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 who states that Junior Engineer was not competent to make statement and the District Forum erred in passing the consent order. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has placed before me a letter dated 27.5.2008 from the Estate Officer, HUDA to Chief Administrator of HUDA wherein it was stated that the Complainant should be allotted the plot No.15-I, Gurgaon so as to avoid any further litigation. The State Commission has examined the matter threadbare including the chequered history of the case as also mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant as a result of the act of the HUDA officials. The State Commission ultimately confirmed allotment of Plot No.233, Section 15 - I, Gurgaon with direction to the Complainant to pay the current market price of the excess area of the plot to the extent of 59.2 sq. mtrs. In view of the above, the order of the State Commission is just, fair, equitable and most reasonable and it does not call for any interference whatsoever in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER