CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

SUSHIL KUMAR SACHDEVA vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 20 February 2004 · Citation: 2004 0 NCDRC 41

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.GUPTA , 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

2 paragraphs · 347 words
1.

IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 20.11.2002 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order dated 2.5.2000 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.

2.

PETITIONER / complainant was allotted plot no. 679 in Sector 10A in 1987 and possession thereof was delivered to him in 1994. Petitioner got this plot transferred to Anil Das Pandey in 1997. Petitioner purchased plot no. 82-P in Sector 4, U.E. Gurgaon from Mulakraj Sharma and this plot was exchanged in lieu of plot no. 192, Sector 21, U.E. Gurgaon, Original rate of said plot no. 82-P was Rs. 965/- per sq. meter. Enhancement was @ 260 per sq.meter. Since the respondent / opposite party insisted to charge @ 1977.62 for the said plot being the floating rate in that sector with enhancement @ 260 per sq.meter, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondent. Although, District Forum held that respondent is entitled to charge at the floating rate it directed that interest over the enhanced price be not charged by the respondent. On appeal by the respondent, part of the order of District Forum regarding non-charging of interest was set aside by the State Commission. Submission advanced by Shri Rakesh Dahia for petitioner was that State Commission ought not to have disturbed the order of District Forum regarding non-charging of interest on enhanced price of the plot. To be only noted that District Forum directed payment of interest as per HUDA policy on the deposits made by petitioner from the date of purchase till physical delivery of possession of the plot was given to him. As rightly held by State Commission, the petitioner cannot evade payment of interest on the enhanced price for the reason that respondent was to pay interest on enhancement of compensation as awarded to the land owners in Land Acquisition proceedings. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed.