Case nº Revision Petition No. 327 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 27/08/2010 in Appeal No. 943/2000 of the State Commission Maharastra) of NCDRC Cases, October 10, 2012 (case S. Thanasekaran Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation (C.I.D.C.O.))
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Khosla, Advocate |
| President | Mr. J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member |
| Resolution Date | October 10, 2012 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
J.M. Malik, J.
-
The main question involved in this case is hether an allottee can challenge the draw of lots conducted through computer, without any rhyme or reason?
-
In June, 1987, ity and Industrial Development Corporationof Maharashtra State (to be called as IDCOherein after) floated a Scheme under elf-Financing Outright Purchase Schemeand brought out a booklet called emand Registration Survey 87 containing types of tenements in seven Townships in Navi Bombay. The booklet further mentions that construction of the houses would start in early 1988 and the houses were supposed to be completed before the Monsoon of 1990. From the booklet it appeared that the type of houses was to be given as per income of the applicants.
-
S.Thanasekaran, the petitioner applied for 40 sq.mtr tenement on 16.07.1987 and made initial payment of Rs.4,000/-. 40 sq.mtrs tenement was to cost Rs.1,10,000/- because the original monthly income group of the complainant fell in the category of Rs.2,501/- and above.
-
There was a press advertisement that Tenders for construction of more tenements were issued and allottees would get the houses by December, 1992. The complainant received letter dated 05.10.1990 which besides other facts also mentioned that the price of the tenement may increase by 10%. The price of the tenement was re-fixed in the year 1990 at Rs.1,56,780/-, the price was thus increased by 42.53%. It was submitted that the OP is bound to adhere to the contract. As per the said letter, the payment was made in eight installments.
-
According to the complainant, who is Civil Engineer in CPWD, Bombay, got sanctioned loan from his Department to the maximum extent of Rs.88,000/-, as house building advance. The said loan was to be paid through installments. It is averred that the last installment coincided with the last installment payable to OP1 on 29.06.1992. The Office Order reveals that if the flat is mortgaged in the name of the President of India, within three monthsfrom the date of disbursement of full amount of advance, a rebate in interest to the extent of 2.5% p.a. would be allowed. A Tripartite agreement was executed between the Government of India, CPWD and the OP, on 13.04.1992.
-
It is averred that the construction was delayed by the OP and house was allotted only in February, 1993. Consequently, the complainant could not mortgage the flat in the name of the President of India, within a period of three months from the payment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial