CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2001) 08 NCDRC CK 0002

R K MITTAL vs S P Kjain

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 6 August 2001 · Citation: 2001 2 CPC 666 : 2001 3 CPJ 46 : 2001 3 CPR 43

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P.WADHWA , C.L.CHAUDHRY , J.K.MEHRA , RAJYALAKSHMI RAO , B.K.TAIMNI J.

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 · 348 words
1.

THIS is a complaint where complainants want this Commission to be a party to the illegal activities of the complainants and the opposite party. Complainants alleged they entered into an agreement with the opposite party for construction of unauthorised building in an unauthorised colony. The cost of the building was estimated to Rs. 50.00 lakhs @ Rs. 550/ - per sq. ft. When the agreement was entered into there was already structure existing on the plot of land covered area of which was 2500 sq. ft. First complainant says he is a senior post graduate teacher in a public school in Delhi and second complainant is a Government employee. As to what job second complainant is holding, we have not been made aware. Complainants say that they have so far paid Rs. 10.50 lakhs to the opposite party builder. Complainants further say that they also paid a sum of Rs. 1.75 lakhs to the opposite party as a temporary loan as the opposite party said that he required the money for personal unavoidable needs. Complainants then say that existing structure was demolished and some constructions started which was later on abandoned.

2.

ALLEGING breach of agreement and complaining deficiency of service , complainants claimed the following reliefs : (i) Amount paid Rs. 10,50,000.00 (ii) Interest @ 24% p.a. from 1st January, 2000 to 30th June, 2001 Rs. 3,78,000.00 (iii) Value of house demolition @ Rs. 300/ - per sq. feet for a constructed area of 2500 sq. ft. Rs. 7,50,000.00 (iv) Towards deprivation for the use of house Rs. 10,00,000.00 Total Rs. 31,78,000.00

As a matter of fact it was mentioned in the complaint that ''one of the fundamental reasons to engage the services of the respondent was his categorical representation of wielding influence with the concerned Govt. Departments to obtain the required sanction/permission for the construction of the new house/modifications as per the needs of the complainants''. We do not find there is any bona fide consumer dispute between the parties. The Commission cannot be a party to unauthorised dealings. This complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.