Case nº Revision Petition No. 3331 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 07, 2015 (case 1. Ajit Kumar Chhabra & Anr., 2. Vimpy Chhabra Vs Nagar Palika Nigam)
|Judge:||For Appellant: For Nagar Palika Nigam : Ms. Priya Puri, Advocate and Ms. Arundhati Katju, Advocate and For Respondents: For the Ajit & Vimpy Chhabra:Mr. Santosh Goswami, Advocate|
|President:||Mr. Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member|
|Resolution Date:||January 07, 2015|
|Issuing Organization:||National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission|
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member (Oral)
By this order, we propose to dispose of the above noted cross revision petitions.
Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the above noted revision petitions are that Municipal Corporation Ratlam ( Opposite Party) floated a proposed Self Financing Commercial Complex scheme known as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Shopping Complex in the year 1995. Under the said scheme 102 shops were to be constructed. The complainant Ajit Chhabra applied for allotment of shop in that complex vide application dated 17.07.1995 and deposited Rs.10,000/- as registration fee. The shop was allotted to him and in furtherance of allotment, the complainant deposited a further sum of Rs.50,000/- on 28.07.1995. As per section 80 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956, the transfer of shops constructed in Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Shopping Complex could only be done through auction by inviting sealed tenders from interested parties. However, shop to the complainant was allotted in violation of Section 80 on the basis of lottery. The opposite party sensing foul play in the allotment of shops, constituted an Enquiry Committee and as per the report of the Enquiry Committee dated 14.08.2005, the allotment of shops on the basis of receipts issued by the then clerk were held invalid in the absence of the sanction order by the competent authority. Consequently, the possession of shop was not given to the complainant. Being aggrieved of the failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the shop, the complainant approached Consumer Forum Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh.
The opposite party resisted the complaint and filed written statement alleging that allotment of shop to the complainant was done in violation of the scheme and as such it was cancelled.
The District Forum Ratlam vide order dated 20.07.2007 allowed the complaint and directed thus:
Opposite Party will pay to the complainant Rs.500/- (five hundred) to the complainant within one month from the date of order for the deficiency in service.
The complainant if wants to get back his deposited amount in respect of Subhash Shopping Complex from the opposite party then could received by making an application according to rules.
The opposite party may make payment of Rs.300 (three hundred) the expenses of notice and will bear its own expenses.
Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, complainant Ajit Chhabra approached State Commission in...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL