BATHINDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2014 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals bearing No. 483 and 1359 of 2014, Bathinda Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "BDA") has preferred these Revision Petitions bearing No. 11 and 12 of 2016 respectively under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the

(2.) The District Forum vide its order dated 10.02.2014 in CC No.478 of 2013 allowed the Complaint and directed BDA to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the total amount deposited by the Complainant from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of completion of the development work and delivery of the possession of the plot together with Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and costs. In CC No. 243 of 2014, the District Forum vide order dated 05.08.2014 party allowed the Complaint and directed BDA to complete the development work at the subject site and to withdraw the demand raised through letter No. 1295 dated 28.2.2014; deliver the possession of the subject plot within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order together with interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of completion of the development work. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards compensation and costs.

(3.) Since the facts in these Revision Petitions are similar and they are against the same common impugned order they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience RP No. 11 of 2016 (BDA vs. Gurdas Singh) is being taken as a lead case.