CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. ANIL MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization (in short 'the CGEWHO') Petitioner in this case against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in Appeal No. 170 of 2006, in favour of Shri Anil Mishra, Respondent in this case.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that the Petitioner is an autonomous body with the aim and objective to construct and provide dwelling houses to Central Government employees in various cities at affordable costs. In 1995, the Petitioner undertook a housing scheme in Sector 56, Gurgaon, Haryana and the Respondent (Shri Anil Mishra) applied for a 'DX' Dwelling Unit under this scheme. Since a 'DX' dwelling unit was not available at that time, the Respondent was allotted a smaller Type 'C' dwelling unit and was placed in the waiting list for a 'DX' unit. In April 1999, the Respondent was offered a 'DX' dwelling unit when it became available subject to payment of penal interest at the rate of 18% as stipulated in Rule 17 of the CGEWHO Rules. The Petitioner has further stated that although the Respondent was fully aware of the additional amount that he would have to pay as per Rule 17, he made a request to the Petitioner for exemption of payment of this amount which was rightly rejected.

(3.) The Respondent's contention is that his case was not covered under Rule 17 which reads as follows: