BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.
MiscellaneousApplication | : | 21 of 2022 |
| In | |
Complaint case no. | : | 56 of 2021 |
Date of Institution of this application | : | 16.09.2022 |
Date of decision | : | 21.09.2022 |
Madan Kumar Garg son of Shri Devi Chand Garg resident of House no.297, Sector 1, Ambala City,
……. Complainant/Applicant.
Versus
1. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Sehari Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Haryana Sehari Vikas Pradhikaran, Karnal, Haryana, through its Estate Officer.
….….Opposite Parties/Respondents.
Present:- Applicant/complainant in person.
By this order, we are going to dispose of this review application filed by the applicant/complainant, against the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by this Commission in consumer complaint bearing no.56 of 2021, titled as Madan Kumar Garg Vs. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Sehari Vikas Pradhikaran Panchkula, Haryana & Another. In this application, it is stated that in para no.13 of the order, to the question “Whether the complainant is entitled to get his amount back from the respondent or not and if yes at what rate of interest?”It was answered that the applicant/complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount alongwith interest @11% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits, but, in the para no.14 (a) of the relief clause of the order dated 02.09.2022, the interest payable has been mentioned as 4% p.a. instead of 11% p.a. The applicant/complainant is entitled to get interest @11% per annum as per the findings given in para no.13 of the order. Prayer has been made to review the order dated 02.09.2022, accordingly.
- Arguments of the applicant/complainant on the review application heard.
- It is significant to mention here that we have perused the order dated 02.09.2022 and found that in para No.13 it has been clearly opined that in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in REVISION PETITION NO. 2942 OF 2017, M/S. R.K. CONSTRO PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. AMOL SUBHASH CHAVAN & 4 ORS. decided on 24 Oct 2017 the complainant (now applicant) is entitled to get refund of his amount alongwith interest @11% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits, but, it appears that as a result of typographical mistake in para no.14 (a) of the order, it has been typed as 4% p.a. instead of 11% p.a.
- In our considered opinion, on the face of the findings of this Commission given in para no.13 of the order dated 02.09.2022, there is an error apparent i.e. in para No.14 (a) instead of mentioning interest @11% p.a. it has been wrongly typed as 4% p.a. Thus, under these circumstances, while exercising the provisions of Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides that the District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties, we allow this review application. The word/number/interest @ 4% P.A. in the said line of relief para of 14 (a) of the order dated 02.09.2022 is substituted by the word/number/interest @11% P.A. The remaining directions given in the order impugned dated 02.09.2022 shall remain intact.
- This order shall become part and parcel of the main order dated 02.09.2022 passed by this Commission in the consumer complaint bearing no.56 of 2021.Certified copy of the main order dated 02.09.2022 alongwith the certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs. The miscellaneous application be tagged alongwith the main case file.
Member Member President.
21.09.2022
