Case nº Revision Petition No. 2433 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 06/03/2012 in Appeal No. 1486/2007 of the State Commission Haryana) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 30, 2016 (case Saroj Bala Vs HUDA)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. G.I. Sharma, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Shreshth Jain, Adv. |
| President | Dr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | November 30, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
-
This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.03.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 1486/2007, "Haryana Urban Development Authority versus Saroj Bala", vide which, while accepting the appeal, the order dated 18.04.2007, passed by the District Forum, Ambala in CC No. 70 of 2006 filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
-
The facts of the case are that the opposite party (OP) / respondent HUDA allotted plot No. 1008, measuring 10 Marlas to the petitioner/complainant in sector 7, Ambala City on 15.02.1980 for a tentative price of ₹13,585/-. As stated in the consumer complaint, the complainant was directed to pay 15% of the tentative price within 30 days of the issue of the allotment letter and the balance amount was to be paid in six annual instalments. It is stated that the tentative price of the flat was paid in time, but the OP HUDA sent four notices to the allottee for payment of enhanced price within 30 days of the receipt of the notices, and in case of failure to do so, the allottee was liable to pay interest on the said amount. The complainant could not pay the enhanced amount due to financial constraints. When she contacted the OP in the year 2002 and wanted to know the outstanding amount payable, she was told that an amount of ₹2 lakh was payable. Since the complainant needed a no objection certificate in respect of the said plot, she deposited amount of ₹2,06,500/- on various dates, whereafter the NOC was granted vide memo dated 21.04.2003. It is alleged, however, that the details of the amount demanded were not furnished by the OP. It was later on revealed that the OP HUDA had charged compound interest on the outstanding enhanced price from the allottee. The stand taken by the complainant, however, was that she was liable to pay simple interest only for the period of delay. She asked the OP to recalculate the outstanding amount on the basis of simple interest and intimate the details of account to her and also refund the excess amount deposited alongwith interest. On the failure of the OP to accede to such demand, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OP to withdraw the demand of ₹2,06,500/- and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial