Case nº Revision Petition No. 3592, 4164 of 2007 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 02, 2015 (case 1. Bimlesh Sakhuja, 2. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs 1. Ansl Housing & Constrution, 2. Bimlesh Sakhuja)
| Judge | For the Petitioner: For Bimlesh Sakhuja: Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate And For the Respondent: For Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.: Mr. Abhinav Sharma & Ms. Shloka Rawal, Advocates |
| President | Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | December 02, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
1. These revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.
2. These revision petitions have been filed by both the parties against the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1075 of 2006 -- Bimlesh Sakhuja Vs. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that residential plot No. C-D-86 measuring 299 sq. yards @ Rs. 2100/- per sq. yards in East End Complex in Tronica City was allotted to complainant on 22.12.1997 by OP/M/s. Ansal Housing and Constructions Ltd. against initial payment of Rs.63,836/- made through cheque dated 22.12.1997. On receipt of invitation card from OP, complainant attended Bhoomi Pujan on 12.2.1998 at site and there he learnt from other allottees that they were given discount of Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per sq. yard by OP as well as by their agents and she realized that she was also entitled to discount of Rs.44,850/-. The other grievance of the complaint had been that the plot allotted to her had been changed and she was entitled for the allotment of the same plot which was initially agreed upon, i.e. C-D-86, East and Complex in Tronica City. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that location of the plot allotted was contractual in accordance with layout plans approved by local authorities. It was further submitted that OP has not discriminated as to price of plot vis-à-vis other allottees from the complainant and if any discount is given by agents to the allottees who booked their plots through agents, OP is not liable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission while allowing appeal, allowed complaint and directed OP to handover possession of plot no. C-D-24 to the complainant on payment of Rs.3,69,824/- besides EDC charges of Rs.38,783/-, Water connection charges Rs.1700/-, sewer connection charges of Rs.2700/- and OP was further directed to pay interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till date of order against which both the parties preferred revision petitions.
4...
To continue reading
Request your trial