ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. Vs. NEERAJ SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) VERY briefly the facts leading of filing the complaint were that Respondents, in all booked six flats under the scheme floated by the Petitioner in Sarvodaya Vihar Colony, Meerut and deposited certain amounts in respect of each flat. When despite payment of initial amounts, the flats were not being allotted and instead of allotting the flat, when the complainants were supplied a booklet named, ˜Allotment Letter which was not acceptable to the complainant and when they were neither getting the allotment letters nor money being refunded, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties passed the following orders: The money deposited by the complainants in consumer cases No. 385/ 92 Dr. Neeraj Saxena and Anr. v. M/s. Ansal Housing, No. 386/ 92; Dr. Neeraj Saxena & Anr. v. M/s. Ansal Housing, No. 387/92; Miss. Malvika Saxena & Anr. v. M/s. Ansal Housing, No. 388/ 92; Smt. Salini Saxena & Anr. v. M/s. Ansal Housing, No. 389/92; Smt. Kamla Devi v. M/s. Ansal Housing, No. 390/92; Ms. Priyanka Saxena & Anr. v. M/s. Ansal Housing, shall be transferred towards the costs of one Flat and the Opposite Party shall adjust these amounts towards the price of one Flat and the remaining, if any, shall be paid by the complainants as per conditions of Allotment Letter applicable to one Flat. However, it shall be the option of the complainants to retain one of the six Flats in writing to the Opposite Party within a week of this order. Parties shall bear their own costs.

(3.) WHEN this order was not being complied, an application for execution was filed before the District Forum, who vide its order dated 14.6.95 directed the petitioner to refund the money in respect of all six flats along with interest @12% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Certain other orders were passed while the execution application was pending. An revision petition was filed before the State Commission against this order of the District Forum passed in execution proceedings, who after hearing the parties dismissed this application filed before the State Commission along with cost of Rs. 1,000, against which this revision petition has been filed before us.