Case nº Revision Petition No. 1140 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 04/08/2016 in Appeal No. 436/2016 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) of NCDRC Cases, May 17, 2017 (case Vishakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (Vuda) Vs Dr. Kaparapu Satya Praveen Kumar)
| Judge | For Appellant: Ms. S. Usha Reddy, Advocate |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain,President and Mrs. M. Shreesha,Member |
| Resolution Date | May 17, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
1. By these Revision Petitions, Vishakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short "the Development Authority"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, calls in question the legality and correctness of the two orders, both dated 04.08.2016, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in FAIA No. 151/2016 in/and FASR No. 436/2016 and FAIA No. 146/2016 in/and FASR No. 439/2016. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Development Authority, as barred by limitation, as there was a delay of 167 days in filing the same, for which, according to the State Commission, no sufficient cause was shown.
2. The Appeals had been preferred by the Development Authority against the orders dated 13.07.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -- I, Vishakhapatnam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 211 and 209 of 2012. By the said orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants herein, the District Forum had directed the Development Authority to pay to the Complainants sums of `3,62,440/- and `2,75,274/- respectively, within two months, with a default stipulation of paying interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the said order till payment. The District Forum had also awarded compensation of `5,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at `1,000/-, each in favour of the Complainants.
3. Since both the Complaints involve more or less similar facts & common issue and the Opposite Party, the Petitioner herein, is also same in both the matters and the Forums below have passed the orders therein on identical lines, though by different orders, these Revision Petitions, filed against the said orders, are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 1140 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts referred to hereinafter are taken from the Complaint filed by the Complainant therein.
4. In order to acquire a house site, the Complainant had participated in the auction conducted by the Development Authority on 27.01.2011. In view of his bid @ `11,600/- per sq. yard, being the highest bidder for the plot in question, viz. Plot No. 584 situated in Ozone Valley Layout (Paradesipalem), admeasuring 502.55 sq. yards, on 28.01.2011 the Complainant was issued the allotment order. He was required to pay the...
To continue reading
Request your trial