Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case nº Revision Petition No. 4118 Of 2008, (Against the Order dated 24/09/2008 in Appeal No. 2550/2003 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) of NCDRC Cases, January 21, 2015 (case 1. Alaknanda Plantation Ltd. and Ors 2. Shri Vijay Bhushan Pandey 3. Smt.Jyoti Pandey 4. H.M.Jayal Vs 1. Sushila Garg and Ors. 2. R.P.Garg 3. Shalini Garg 4. Praveen Kumar Garg)

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. M.S. Mangla, Advocate
PresidentMr. Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
DefenseConsumer Law
Resolution DateJanuary 21, 2015
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases

Order:

  1. Respondents Sushila Garg, R.P.Garg, Shalini Garg and Praveen Kumar Garg filed a joint consumer complaint against the petitioners M/s Alkananda Plantation Ltd., Vijay Bhushan Pandey, Jyoti Pandey and H.M.Jayal besides six others alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of plantation project launched by them in which the complainants have deposited certain amount. Case of the complainants was that the opposite parties have failed to repay the amount on maturity. The consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite parties.

  2. The District Forum Meerut on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties no. 1 to 8 including the petitioners to pay the maturity amount of Rs.4,18,000/- to the respondents complainants with 12% interest p.a. from the date of maturity of their deposits till the actual date of payment besides a sum of Rs.2000/- was awarded as damages and Rs.2000/- was awarded as cost of litigation.

  3. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioners filed separate appeals being appeal numbers 2549/SC/2003, 2550/SC/2003, 2680/SC/2003, 485/SC/2004, 486/SC/2004 & 497/SC/2004. The aforesaid appeals were taken up together by the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh Pradesh and were dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.5000/- in each appeal.

  4. The petitioners not being satisfied with the order of the State Commission preferred revision petition Nos. 4117 & 4118 of 2008. Our predecessor bench vide common order dated 28.05.2009 while agreeing with the findings of the State Commission modified the order of the State Commission as under:

    "Accordingly, keeping in view the reasoning given by us in our order dated 30.04.2009, we direct the petitioners in these two revision petitions ( No. 4117 and 4118 of 2008) to pay the complainants / respondents interest on the maturity amount @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of realization. As the complainants were dragged upto the level of National Commission, which has resulted in huge litigation cost to them, we hereby award further litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents / complainants."

  5. The petitioners have filed the instant review petition number 234/2009 alleging that the order dated 28.05.2009 of this Commission suffers from the error inasmuch as that the National Commission has awarded 18% interest per annum on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial