First Appeal Nos. 832 and 1099/2015. Case: Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) and Ors. Vs Chanda Devi Khetan. Rajasthan State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases
| Case Number | First Appeal Nos. 832 and 1099/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Chandra Shekhar, Counsel |
| Judges | Nisha Gupta, J. (President) and Sunita Ranka, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | January 11, 2017 |
| Court | Rajasthan State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases |
Order:
Nisha Gupta, J. (President), (Jaipur)
-
Both these appeals have been filed against the common order dated 11.6.2015 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 2nd hence, are decided by this single order.
-
The contention of the consumer is that she has deposited Rs. 93,600/- alongwith the application for allotment. She has been allowed priority No. 48. Thereafter the non-applicant RIICO has asked for deposit of Rs. 1,40,000/- but as there was no facility of water this amount has not been deposited by her but Rs. 35,000/- has been deposited on 23.8.2005 and inspite of the recommendation of allotment committee she has not been allotted the plot. The Forum below has not considered the facts in the light of above and only ordered for refund of money alongwith interest.
-
Per contra the contention of the respondent RIICO is that they were not deficient in the service. The consumer had only deposited Rs. 93,600/- and thereafter instead of Rs. 1,40,000/- only Rs. 35,000/- has been deposited. Hence, her allotment was cancelled as 25% of the money was not deposited and amount of Rs. 64,686/- sent by the consumer was returned to her immediately and they have also send the amount of Rs. 1,28,600/- to the consumer but she has not accepted it. Hence, no interest is payable and otherwise also the money was deposited with the condition that no interest is payable.
-
The other contention of the RIICO is that in similar matter it has been held by the National Commission that it is not a consumer dispute and complainant could not be termed as consumer. Hence, the appeal should have been allowed.
-
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
-
In the present matter the complaint was filed on 10.10.2006 and District Forum vide its order dated 6.8.2008 has dismissed the complaint holding that the present dispute between the parties was not a consumer dispute. On appeal the present Commission has held that the dispute between the parties is a consumer dispute and matter was remanded back to the District Forum to decide it on merits. Hence, the contention of the respondent RIICO that the District Forum is not having any jurisdiction is of no avail in the facts of the present case as order of this Commission dated 5.3.2009 is a final order between the parties.
-
The respondent RIICO has relied upon the judgment passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 844/2015 M/s. Ashoka Marbles Vs. RIICO but as...
To continue reading
Request your trial