w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. v/s Somani Industries


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD [Active] CIN = U13100RJ1969SGC001263

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD [Active] CIN = L13100RJ1969SGC001263

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993RJ1946PTC000378

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U14219RJ1949PLC000700

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003300

Company & Directors' Information:- SOMANI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U28920MH1943PTC003811

Company & Directors' Information:- K V DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65922MH1979PTC021155

Company & Directors' Information:- R N B J INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1982PTC028451

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999RJ1949PTC000737

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67121ML1988PTC003133

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJASTHAN INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1942PTC011099

Company & Directors' Information:- SOMANI INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65910GJ1993PTC020603

    Revision Petition No. 2055 of 2001

    Decided On, 13 December 2001

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA
    By, MEMBER
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Narottam Vyas, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text

D.P. Wadhwa, President:

1. Petitioner was the opposite party in the complaint filed by respondent before the District Forum. It is aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing its appeal and affirming the order of the District Forum which in turn allowed the complaint. Dispute was regarding deduction by the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 21,123 from the refund made to the complainant at his request that the plots allotted to him were not suitable.

2. Complainant was allotted two plots of land for establishing ginning factory. An amount of Rs. 54,000 was deposited on 24.9.1990. Since plots were not suitable for establishing the factory, on the application of the complainant other plots were allotted which were of the same area. However, a further demand was created. Complainant deposited a further sum of Rs. 50,000 on 14.1.1991. A sum of Rs. 1,489 was also deposited against the plots.

3. However, when the complainant inspected the site it was found that the plots were in dispute with the third party on which account petitioner cancelled the allotment. Petitioner, therefore, sought refund of the money paid by him. But then the petitioner sought to reallot the plots but this time complainant was not willing to establish industry and demanded the refund of the deposit made by him. Refund was made by the petitioner after deducting Rs. 21,123 as per relevant RICCO Land Settlement Rules, 1979.

4. Complaining deficiency in service complaint was filed. It was submitted that the relevant rules will not be applicable inasmuch as plots allotted were in dispute and allotment had to be cancelled. For this complainant could not be blamed. Accepting the complaint District Forum directed refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,123 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. Cost of Rs. 300 was also awarded. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commissi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on was dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner has come before us. We see no ground to interfere under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. R.P. dismissed.
O R