Tribunals and Commissions

Sudarshan vs HUDA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 24 July 2003 · Citation: 2003 3 CPR 8 : 2004 2 CPC 365 : 2004 3 CPJ 62

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P.Wadhwa , Rajyalakshmi Rao , B.K.Taimni , K.S.Gupta J.
RESULT
Revision Petition allowed
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

4 paragraphs · 427 words
1.

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum. Facts leading to filing the complaint were that the petitioner was allotted a plot in Gurgaon in July 1993, for which Rs. 2,59,760.75 were paid. Possession was not given. In fact, in April 1999, complainant was asked to pay another sum of Rs. 1,96,342/- as additional/enhanced cost of the plot. When possession was not being given, a complaint was filed before the District Forum praying for direction to the respondent to deliver the possession of the allotted plot, pay interest on the deposited amount as also not to charge any interest on the additional cost.

2.

THE District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint in following terms: "In these circumstances, it is ordered that the respondent/HUDA shall deliver the possession of the plot No. 98, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Gurgaon to the complainant within one month after receipt of this order. It is further ordered that the respondent/HUDA shall pay interest as per HUDA policy after the two years from the date of deposits till the date of physical possession delivered to the complainant. THE interest on the additional price/enhancement price be not charged from the complainant till the physical possession of the plot in question." On an appeal filed by the respondent, before the State Commission, it was partly allowed. The relief given by way of direction to the respondent, not to charge interest on the enhanced price, was set aside. Rest of the order was maintained-hence this revision-petition by the complainant.

We heard the arguments and perused the material on record. Petitioner relying upon this Commission''s judgment in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC)=RP 1197 of 1998 prays for grant of interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the deposited amount. There is no disputing fact that petitioner was allotted a plot in July 1993, possession of which has not been given till now. Keeping in view our judgment (supra) we direct the respondent to give possession of the allotted plot within 8 weeks of the order and to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from two years after respective dates of deposit(s). The amount so worked could be adjusted against the amounts due to the respondent from the petitioner as per law.

3.

THE revision petition is allowed in above terms. Petitioner would also be entitled to cost which we fix at Rs. 3,000/- to be payable by the respondent to the petitioner within eight weeks of the order. Revision Petition allowed.