CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1994) 03 NCDRC CK 0029

PROF. S. NAGARAJAN vs SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 2 March 1994 · Citation: 1994 3 CPJ 261

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Venkatarami Reddy , J.Ananda Lakshmi , C.V.Subba Reddy J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 375 words
1.

THIS appeal is preferred by the complainant in CD. No. 305/90. Aggrieved by that portion of the order of the District Forum, rejecting his claim for damages in a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, this appeal is filed .

2.

SHORTLY, stated the complainant applied for one HIG flat at, Kukatpalle to the opposite party which was offered at a cost of Rs. 1,28,000/- by notification dated 18.5.1987. He complied with the initial deposit of 10% of the cost of building and also paid two instalments of Rs. 38,400/- each. According to the complainant as the Housing Board did not complete the construction within a period of two years, he wrote a letter on 18.1.1989 to withdraw from the scheme and seeking refund of the amount paid by him. The cancellation was accepted by the oppositie party on 24.1.1990 and refunded the amount withholding a sum of Rs. 2000/-Claiming that such a withholding is not warranted and also as there was delay in completing the houses the complainant was entitled for damages of Rs. 50,000/- the complaint was filed. The District Forum held that the opposite party is not entitled to withhold a sum of Rs. 2000/-. It accordingly directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 2000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 24.1.1990 till payment and also costs of Rs. 500/-

It is contended in this appeal that since there is delay in completion of the houses the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- This contention according to us is devoid of merits . Firstly, the complainant himself applied for withdrawal from the scheme and sought for refund of the amount paid by him. Alongwith that, he did not claim any damages. It is also evident that the complainant did not pay the third instalment. It is only when the opposite party asked for payment of the third instalment, the complainant withdrew from the scheme. It, therefore, cannot be said that the complainant has suffered any damages as he himself withdrew from the scheme and asked for refund of the amount. Hence we feel that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. But, there shall be not order to costs. Appeal dismissed.