Tribunals and Commissions

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs PRAVEEN DUBLISH

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 6 November 2001 · Citation: 2001 0 NCDRC 18 : 2002 1 CLT 575 : 2002 1 CPC 53 : 2002 2 CPJ 115

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K.TAIMNI , D.P.WADHWA , J.K.MEHRA , RAJYALAKSHMI RAO J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 404 words
1.

THIS revision petition under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by the opposite parties who are builders. Petitioner-opposite party lost before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondents. From that order petitioner filed appeal before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition.

2.

THERE were two complainants father and son. They were allotted house No. 6/501 in Abhilasha Apartments being built by the petitioners. Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 87,262.50 towards purchase price of the house on various dates. However, possession of the house was not being delivered to the complainants and ultimately it was found that the petitioner had allotted that house to some other person, though all this time petitioner had been assuring to give the possession of the house. Complaining deficiency in service, complaint was filed before the District Forum which was allowed and it was directed that the amount of Rs. 87,262.50 be refunded to the complainants with 18% interest from the respective dates of deposit of the amount made by the complainants to the petitioners-opposite parties. Complainants were also awarded compensation and Rs. 200/- as costs. State Commission on appeal filed by the petitioners-opposite parties by detailed order upheld the order of the District Forum and as noted above dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. There is a concurrent finding by both the District Forum and the State Commission of the default committed by the petitioners. We do not find any merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 2,000/-.

3.

AT the time when we issued notice on this petition we had stayed the operation of the order of the District Forum and the State Commission on the petitioners'' depositing a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh by way of Bank draft with the Registrar of this Commission within a period of four weeks. It is also directed that upon deposit, Registrar will keep the amount invested in a short term deposit with the nationalised Bank. In case any such amount has been deposited, payment of interest as per the order of the District Forum and as affirmed by the State Commission will cease on the amount to that extent and Registrar will direct payment of the amount with interest accrued thereon to the respondents-complainants.