LAWS(NCD)-2007-8-105

HUDA Vs. HARSH VARDHAN SOOD

Decided On August 21, 2007
HUDA Appellant
V/S
HARSH VARDHAN SOOD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the notice of penalty dated 30.8.2006 issued under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986), which has been termed as an order passed in Execution Petition No.40 of 2006 arisen out of the Complaint No.273 of 2000 titled as Harshvardhan Sood V/s. HUDA, as illegal, unwarranted, bad in law in utter violation of the principle of natural justice and Rule of Audi-Alteram-Partem and also contrary to the laws and rules, without jurisdiction and non est.

(2.) In order to decide the present revision petition, the essential facts need to be focused briefly. The District Forum, Panchkula while deciding the Complaint No.273 of 10.10.2000, as per order dated 2.3.2006 issued the following directions to the petitioner-opposite parties. : " (a) To issue the formal allotment letter in respect of Plot No.606p/19, Panchkula and not to charge any interest on the delayed payment of instalment which can only accrue from the date of offer of possession letter. (b) To pay 10% interest on the deposited amount w. e. f.26.3.1992 till offer of possession. (c) Also pay Rs.1,000 as costs of proceedings. Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. " As the above directions were not complied with, the complainant filed the present execution application before the District Forum with prayer that action be taken against the petitioner-opposite parties and notice of penalty under Sec.27 of the Act, 1986 was issued under the signature of the President of the District Forum, to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula requiring him to appear before the District Forum, Panchkula on 20.9.2006 at 11.00 a. m. and to show cause as to why the penalty be not imposed upon him under Sec.27 of the Act, as he has failed to comply with the order dated 3.3.2006 passed in Complaint No.273 of 2000. It is against this notice the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.