PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SHABNAM VIRK

IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 16.5.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, the operative portion whereof reads thus : "Let re-calculations be made by PUDA as aforesaid by taking into account that first instalment had been paid in October, 1998 which was within time and whatever balance amount or amounts were paid thereafter, necessary adjustments should be made accordingly and if still any amount is due from the complainant, he may be asked to pay that amount. These directions be carried out within a period of one month of the receipt of copy of this order. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs."

RESPONDENT/complainant was allotted house No. 2661-C in Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide allotment letter No. 6774 dated 21.8.1998 by the petitioner/opposite party authority for a consideration of Rs. 7,44,000 and 25% thereof i.e., Rs. 1,86,000 was to be paid before possession was given. Order of State Commission notices that respondent had paid Rs. 1,03,000 before delivery of possession of the house and allowing adjustment for this amount, the balance of Rs. 83,000 was to be paid by her in monthly instalments of Rs. 9,280 each. After noticing Clauses 4 and 6 of the allotment letter, the State Commission was of the view that 25% of the consideration money as also amount of first instalment were paid before 21.10.1998 i.e., within 60 days of receipt of allotment letter as provided by said Clause 4 and the next instalments would be due on 21.11.1998 and so on. Commission was of the further view that petitioner authority erroneously assumed that first instalment was due in August, 1998 and some interest was payable on amount of instalments from August, 1998 to October, 1998. In this backdrop, appeal was disposed of with the direction referred to above. Having heard Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar for petitioner authority and also having considered Clauses 4 and 6 of allotment letter and pleadings we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.