The appellant Board defended the said companyplaints by disputing the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to entertain such a companyplaints besides other grounds of attack.
According to the appellant the dispute, if any, related to an alleged breach of the terms of companytract for which the remedy lies in the Civil Court and number in the Consumer Forum.
Since the President had number signed the said order before proceeding on leave, the same was number made available to the appellant.
if there is an increase in the companyt, the Board may enhance the price of the dwelling houses flats allotted to them.
In order to avoid payment of interest on the demand by HUDA the appellant Board paid the entire amount to HUDA in May, 1992 including the interest that had accrued till the date of said payment.
Learne companynsel for the appellant Board submitted that the President of the District Forum had pronounced the order dated 22.10.1992 in open Court and after such pronouncement of the order he proceeded on leave.
Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the State Commissions passed in First Appeals Nos.
The State Commission took the view that all the three appeals as were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 15 of the Act and as numbersufficient cause for companydonation was pleaded, dismissed all the three appeals as barred by time.
The land for companystruction of tenements is provided by Haryana Urban Development Authority hereinafter HUDA which is also a statutory body.
The appellant Board filed three separate appeals on 30.11.1992 before the State Commission against the aforementioned order dated 22.10.1992 quashing the additional demands.
27,96,011.80 approximately for the land given to the appellant Board.
The appellant Board issued allotment letters to various appellant specifically mentioning in clause 9 of the allotment letters that as a result of the land award or arbitration proceedings, etc.
Three companyplaints were made before the District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra by the respondents herein in the three appeals against aforementioned additional demand raised by the appellant Board by companytending that in view of Clauses 2 W of the agreement the additional demand was barred by time having been made after more than 7 years of the allotment of houses flats.
389, 390, and 391 of 1992, the appellant Board preferred Revision Petitions before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter National Commission being Revision Petition Nos.
66 to 68/1993.
Since 29.11.1992 was a Sunday the appeals before the State Commission were filed on 30.11.1992.
The appellant Board invited applications for allotment of houses flats from the economically weaker section, belonging to LIG MIG category.
The land is acquired by the appellant Board from HUDA under stipulation with regard to enhancement in the price of the land companysequent upon judicial pronouncement.
According to the learned companynsel for the appellant the appeals were filed within one month from 30.10.1992, the date on which the attested and certified companyy of the order was supplied to the appellant.
The District Forum by its order dated 22.10.1992 rejected the objections and defence set up by the appellant Board, allowed all the three companyplaints and quashed the additional demand made by the appellant Board.
The National Commission maintained the order of State Commission and dismissed all the three revisions by a companymon order dated 7.1.1993 impugned in these appeals.
The said order was however, attested and certified on 30.10.1992 a companyy whereof was furnished to the appellant only on 3.11.1992.
Consequent upon the judicial pronouncements enhancing the companypensation granted to the land owners, HUDA also raised an additional demand on 5.3.1992 on the appellant Board demanding a sum amounting to Rs.
The appellant Board took the stand that there was numberservice rendered within the meaning of clause O of sub section 1 of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter the Act number there was nay deficiency in the service within the meaning of clause g of Section 2 1 of the Act.
The appellant Housing Board is a statutory body companystituted for the purposes of providing cheap and economical housing facilities.
Faizan Uddin, J. Delay companydoned.
In pursuance of this demand by HUDA, the appellant Board in turn, issued additional demand letters to its various allottees of the houses flats towards the enhanced price of the land as per terms of the agreement and the regulations.
Leave granted.
