NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4594/2009

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHINDER SAINI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. R.S. BADHRAN

27 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4594 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 20/07/2009 in Appeal No. 1392/2004 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. HUDASonepatSonepatHaryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MOHINDER SAINIR/o House No.108, New Basti, Bandepur,SonepatHaryana2. SUMANR/o House No.108,New Basti,Bandepur,SonepatHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 27 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 learned counsel for petitioner. The respondent-complainant was re-allotted a plot possession of which was given only on paper. There was no development, as promised by the HUDA, which forced the respondent-complainant to approach the District Forum, who ordered payment of 9% interest on the deposit of the complainant and directed the authority to deliver and hand over the physical possession of the plot. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the State Commission, the State Commission observed that the petitioner-authority having already complied with the order passed by District Forum, the appeal had been rendered infructuous. The appeal accordingly was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compliance of the order of the District Forum was subject to the outcome of the legal rights available to the petitioner in case of favourable verdict in its favour. Learned counsel, however, has not been able to point out any reference from which it could be inferred that the compliance of the order of the District Forum was made without any prejudice to the interest of the authority or that it was complied with, with any reservation. The petitioner authority, under the circumstances, now cannot turn around and take the plea that they had the legal right to agitate the matter after its compliance. The State Commission, therefore, has rightly dismissed their appeal being infructuous. This Commission does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission and the revision petition under the circumstances being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.