Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Rajnish Chander Sharde
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5970 of 1996
Petitioner: Haryana Urban Development Authority
Respondent: Rajnish Chander Sharde
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5970 of 1996
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 01, 2000
Head Note:
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Appeal against direction of National Commission – Delay in allot-ment of plot by State Authority – Allottee claiming rent paid by him during the period he was forced to stay due to delay in the allotment of plot – National Commission however directing payment of interest at the rate of 18 per cent on the amount deposited by allottee from the time of payment to the date of allotment and handing over of possession of plot to him. Held no interference in the direction of National Commission called for. No merit in appeal.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. There is no merit in this appeal. Considering what has been stated by the appellant in its own written statement filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we express our surprise that it should have filed this appeal at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant now desires to confine the appeal only to the interest that has accumulated because of the stay order that was passed at the appellants’ instance by this Court. In the order of the National Commission it is stated that the respondent had claimed compensation for having being compelled to live in rented accommodation from 1982 till 1994 at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per month. Instead of making that award, the National Commission directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amounts that had been deposited by the respondent from time to time from 1979 onwards till a new plot could be allotted to him and possession thereof could be delivered. Given the facts, we see no justification in interfering with that direction and, conse-quent upon the dismissal of the appeal and the vacation of the stay order, that direction must now be fully complied with.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
1. There is no merit in this appeal. Considering what has been stated by the appellant in its own written statement filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we express our surprise that it should have filed this appeal at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant now desires to confine the appeal only to the interest that has accumulated because of the stay order that was passed at the appellants’ instance by this Court. In the order of the National Commission it is stated that the respondent had claimed compensation for having being compelled to live in rented accommodation from 1982 till 1994 at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per month. Instead of making that award, the National Commission directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amounts that had been deposited by the respondent from time to time from 1979 onwards till a new plot could be allotted to him and possession thereof could be delivered. Given the facts, we see no justification in interfering with that direction and, conse-quent upon the dismissal of the appeal and the vacation of the stay order, that direction must now be fully complied with.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
