Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Jagannathi Devi (Dead) Thru Lakhan Lal Gupta Vs Lucknow Development Authority (NCDRC Delhi)
Appeal Number : First Appeal No. 863 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/09/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : NCDRC/SCDRC
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Jagannathi Devi (Dead) Thru Lakhan Lal Gupta Vs Lucknow Development Authority (NCDRC Delhi)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) held that the interest shall be given from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment, by relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Cout wherein it was held that the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts.

Facts: The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) against the Order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow.

Brief facts of the Case are that in the year 1990 the Opposite Party notified a housing scheme. The complainant secured her registration for an allotment of MIG built up house by depositing the prescribed registration amount of Rs.15,000/- on 22.08.1990. Accordingly, an MIG house under Self Financing Scheme at Kanpur Road (Sector H) on 30.07.1991 was allotted to the complainant. The entire estimated cost of the said house amounting to Rs.340,000/- (including Rs.15,000/- registration money) was deposited by 16.01.1993. After depositing complete dues, the complainant visited the site to inspect the condition of said allotted house. On inspection the complainant found certain defects.

On 04.04.1993 the complainant lodged a strong protest with the OP and requested to change the allotted house with a different house or return the deposited amount along with due interest. For six years the OP kept the matter in cold storage in spite of several representations. Neither the OP changed the said defective house nor refunded the deposited amount with due interest to the complainant. After such harassment, the complainant on 20.02.1999 met the Vice-Chairman of the OP Mr. Balvinder Singh and again requested either to allot any other house at the same cost or to refund her deposited amount with interest. The Vice-Chairman of the OP directed for inspection.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031