Case nº Revision Petition No. 1716 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 23/02/2016 in Appeal No. 1546/2014 of the State Commission Punjab) of NCDRC Cases, May 17, 2017 (case Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs Surinder Kumar Modi)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate
PresidentMr. Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Presiding Member
Resolution DateMay 17, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases


  1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed in First Appeal No. 1546 of 2014 by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (herein after referred as ''the State Commission'') whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the opposite parties and upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred as ''the District Forum'').

  2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant, Shri Surinder Kumar Modi applied for one HIG flat in the Scheme 17 kanal 1 marla, namely Shri Hare Krishna Tower, Jalandhar through Lucky draw held on 15.09.2006. The complainant was declared successful in the draw of lots and was allotted HIG flat bearing No. 102, Ground floor vide letter JIT/6204 dated 9.11.2006. The complainant was requested to pay Rs.24,69,600/- which were paid as per the allotment agreement. As per the term 7 and 11 of the allotment letter, possession was to be delivered in June 2009.

  3. It is alleged that the OP failed to handover the possession of the flat within 2½ years i.e. by June 2009. Also, OP did not pay the rental charges as agreed for the delayed possession. Hence, complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar. The District Forum vide order dated 14.10.2014 accepted the complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,40,000/- as compensation due to failure to deliver the possession of the flat to the complainant till date of filing of present complaint. Also, Rs.10,000/- p.m. as compensation for failure to deliver the possession and Rs.3,000/- as cost.

  4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP filed first appeal before the State Commission, Punjab. The State Commission vide order dated 23.2.2016 dismissed the appeal. It was held that in case the possession of the flat would have been delivered to the complainant then he would have saved his rent paid by him to his landlord. Therefore, on account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs for not delivering the possession in time, he suffered financial loss which has been allowed by the District Forum.

  5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed by the opposite parties.

  6. Heard the learned counsel...

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