Case nº Revision Petition Nos. 2320 and 3817 of 2013 and Interim Application No. 4769 of 2013 and 4749 of 2014 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 23, 2014 (case 1. Alok Garg, 2. Ghaziabad Development Authority Vikas Path Vs 1. Ghaziabad Development Authority Vikas Path, 2. Alok Garg)

JudgeFor Appellant: Saurabh Suman Sinha, Advocate and Party in Person and For Respondents: Party in Person, Shantanu Krishna and Saurabh Suman Sinha, Advocates
PresidentAjit Bharihoke, (Presiding Member) and Rekha Gupta, Member
Resolution DateJuly 23, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Ajit Bharihoke, (Presiding Member)

  1. By this order, we propose to decide the above noted cross petitions arising out of the same order.

  2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the above revision petitions are that Alok Garg, petitioner in RP No. 2320 of 2013 (in short, 'the Complainant') filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Ghaziabad alleging that attracted by the advertisement of Shipra Sun City, a joint venture project undertaken by the opposite parties, the complainant applied for a ground floor facing wide road vide application no. 13093 dated 24.12.2000. Alongwith the application, the complainant paid Rs. 40,000/- by cheque which was accepted by the opposite parties. That pursuant to the application, the opposite parties issued allotment letter dated 13.02.2001 mentioning that flat no. 534-A Regent Ground Floor, Shipra Sun City Indirapuram was allotted to the complainant. The schedule of payment for the said flat was annexed to the letter dated 13.02.2001. On receipt of allotment letter, the petitioner visited the site and found that flat no. 534-A was not facing the wide road but it was facing the service lane. The petitioner being aggrieved lodged protest with the opposite parties on 24.02.2001 but the opposite parties did not take any action on the request of the complainant to allot him the flat facing wide road. When the opposite parties failed to rectify the mistake despite of request made on several occasions, the complainant served the opposite parties with legal notice dated 14.03.2011 but the opposite parties did not respond to the notice. The complainant, however, during the intervening period kept on paying the instalments as per the payment schedule without prejudice to his rights. This led to the filing of the consumer complaint.

  3. Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 resisted the complaint. The stand taken by Opposite parties no. 3 & 4 is that the complainant in his application No. 13093 dated 24.12.2000 had shown his preference for allotment of a flat facing wide road. However, the complainant was allotted flat No. 534-A (Regent type) which was not facing the wide road. The complainant, if he was not interested in the allotted flat was at liberty to withdraw from the project but he kept on paying the instalments which means that complainant had accepted the offer of opposite parties no. 3 & 4 to allot flat no. 534-A. It is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 3 & 4.

  4. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT