National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member) observed that,
NOIDA being a public authority should have adopted uniform policy for extending period of construction between the same category of persons.
Instant petition was filed against the order of the State Consumer Redressal Forum. Earlier, the District Forum held that NOIDA was a public authority, as such could not adopt a different policy for extending period of construction between the same category of persons.
In view of the above findings, the complaint was allowed, and the revisionist was directed to refund Rs 27,010 along with interest @ 15% per annum. The revisionist filed First Appeal and the same was heard by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission who by its judgment partly modified the decision of District Forum and reduced the interest to @1% per annum from 15% per annum.
Hence the present revision petition was filed.
Analysis and Decision
Commission observed that the decisions of the Foras below that different policy had been adopted by the revisionist for extension of the period of construction between the same category of persons does not suffer from any illegality.
Further, Coram added that being a public authority, NOIDA was bound to adopt a uniform policy for all.
State Commission had already reduced the interest even below the rate of interest provided by the bank. Hence, the revisionist could not point out any illegality in the orders of Foras below.
In view of the above discussion, the revision was dismissed. [New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. M.C. Pandey, Revision Petition No. 300 of 2021, decided on 9-08-2021]
Advocates before the Commission:
For the Petitioner: Ms Manisha Agrawal Narain
