Haryana

StateCommission

RP/87/2015

Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Kumar Sudan - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                                      Revision Petition No.            87 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:                 23.10.2015

                                      Date of Decision:                   30.03.2016

 

 

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Hisar.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Raj Kumar Sudan son of Sh. Chuni Lal, resident of House No.630, Urban Estate No.II, Hisar.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

                                                                                                             For the parties:             None for the petitioner

                             Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the respondent

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Vide order dated 27^th March 2000 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’) accepted the complaint No.1420 of 1998 titled Raj Kumar Sudan Vs. Haryana Urban Development authority through its Estate Officer, Hisar. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“So, in these circumstances, the complainant is awarded interest @ 15% per annum on the entire deposited amount including 25% amount from the date of re-allotment of the plot i.e. from 23.11.1992 till the date of offer of possession of the plot which is in this case is 13.11.1997.  The opposite party is directed to comply with the abovesaid order within a period of one month; failing which action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act would be taken against the respondent.  There is no order as to costs.”

 

2.      Against the order dated March 27^th 2000, HUDA filed appeal before this Commission, which was decided on May 08^th 2000 reducing the rate of interest from 15% to 12% and the remaining order of the District Forum was upheld.

3.      Lateron the order was corrected by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated April 7^th 2003, which reads as under:-

“Present:    Mrs. Sonia Gupta, Adv. for the HUDA-respondent.

 

          None for the complainant-decree holder.

          In the order passed by this forum dated 27.03.2000, the date of reallotment has been mentioned as 23.11.1992 whereas the correct date is 23.11.1998.  Copy of re-allotment letter has been placed on the record which shows that the date of re-allotment is 23.11.1998.  So, due to inadvertence, the date has been wrongly mentioned in the order as 23.11.1992.  It is ordered that the date be corrected as 23.11.1998.  The application of respondent-HUDA stands disposed of.”

 

4.      Complainant filed execution application before the District Forum, which was dismissed in default, but District Forum held in impugned order dated February 18^th 2015 as under:-

“Resultantly this mistake is hereby ordered to be corrected/rectified and now corrected order under execution would read as under:

So, in these circumstances, the complainant is awarded interest @ 15% per annum, on the entire deposited amount including 25% amount from the date of allotment of the plot i.e. from 21.9.1986 till the date of offer of possession of the plot which is in this case is 13.11.1997. The opposite party is directed to comply with the abovesaid order within a period of one month; failing which action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act would be taken against the respondent.  There is no order as to costs.”

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that District Forum could not have corrected the original order of the District Forum in execution proceedings.

6.      Submission being convincing, the interest was to be paid by the HUDA to the complainant from the date of re-allotment, that is, November 23^rd, 1998 and not from the date of allotment, that is, November 13^th, 1997.  The District Forum apparently fell in error in correcting the original order and passed the impugned order.  Thus, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 

 

 

Announced 30.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K