what type of material u r asking about? is it the court cases of puda. or some other type of information.

relating to working, constitution etc and also some of landmark judgements

FOLLOWING ARE THE JUDGEMENT WHICH I FOUND CAN BE USEFUL TO YOU........... 

                                                             JUDGEMENT NO. 1

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.





Appeal case No.134/2009



Date of institution:9.3.2009



Date of decision :8.7.2009

Mrs. Sudha Anand r/o H.No.4556 MIG(S), Sector-70, Mohali …Appellant

Versus 

1. Chief Administrator PUDA,PUDA house, Mohali.

2. Additional Chief Administrator PUDA, PUDA House, Mohali.

3. The Estate Officer, PUDA, PUDA House, Mohali. 

...Respondents







Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against



order dated 13.2.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes



Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh. 







Argued by: Sh.R.N.Anand, authorized representative of appellant.



Sh.Rajesh Sood, advocate for respondents.











BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President



Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member











JUDGMENT



8.7.2009







Justice Pritam Pal, President











1. This appeal by complainant Mrs. Sudha Anand is directed against order dated 13.2.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby her execution application filed under Section-27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 was dismissed.



2. Without going into the details, suffice it to say that complainant had filed a complaint levelling various allegations againstPunjab Urban Development & Planning Authority(hereinafter to be referred as OP) before the District Forum, Chandigarh. The said complaint was dismissed by the Forum vide its order dated 6.11.2007 and as such no relief was granted to the complainant. Thereafter she filed an appeal bearing No.823 of 2007 before the State Consumer Commission, U.T. Chandigarh that too was dismissed vide order dated 8.4.2008. However, a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Commission reveals that some observations were made in para-22 of its judgment in favour of the complainant but ultimately her complaint was dismissed as is apparent from para No.25 of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Commission. It is also a fact that against the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the commission, revision petition No.2322 of 2008 has already been preferred before the Hon’ble National Commission and the same is still pending. 



3. Now the contention of learned representative who is husband of complainant is that since favourable observations are there in para No.22 of the State Commission’s judgment, therefore, she is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from OPs. No doubt some observations in her favour are there in para-22 of the judgment dated 8.4.2008 but at the same time in para-16 of the judgment there is categorically finding of the State Commission that since the complainant had not paid the whole installments of the flat, so, she was not a consumer and as such was also not competent to file the complaint.



4. Be that as it may, taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the execution application filed before the District Forum was totally misconceived. Moreover, the revision petition of the complainant is yet to be decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, therefore, at this stage no relief can be granted in the matter by this Commission. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.



Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room. 











Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.)



8nd July.,2009 President







(Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor )(Retd.)



Member

                                                               JUDGEMENT no. 2

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2153 OF 2004

(From Order dated 04.08.2004 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarhin FA No. 158 of 2004)

Baljit Singh                                                                                                     Petitioner

versus

Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA)                                          Respondent

BEFORE

                        Dr. P. D. SHENOY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                        MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner                                                                                          In Person

For the Respondent                                                  Ms C. K. Sucharita, Advocate

Dated the 15^th February 2008

ORDER

ANUPAM DASGUPTA

            This revision petition impugns the judgment and order dated 04.08.2004 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (in short, the ‘UT Commission’) in First Appeal No. 158 of 2004. By this order, the UT Commission upheld the judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 144 of 1997 that the respondent Punjab Urban Development Authority (in short, the ‘PUDA’) shall pay to the petitioner (original complainant, hereafter the ‘complainant’) the sum of Rs. 3,000/- with interest thereon @10% per annum for three years. The UT Commission, however, disallowed the cost of Rs. 550/- awarded by the District Forum to the complainant.

2.         Briefly, the facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement published by the PUDA in October 1989 regarding demand survey for social housing from Low Income Group (LIG), Middle Income Group (MIG) and High Income Group (HIG) applicants for free-hold, built up houses on hire-purchase basis in several cities and towns of Punjab, the complainant applied for an HIG house in S. A. S. Nagar and deposited the requisite registration fee of Rs. 3,000/- on 20.11.1989. However, in September 1996, the complainant received a cheque for Rs. 3,000/- from the PUDA, purportedly as refund of the said registration fee. He returned the said cheque to the issuing bank and wrote back to the PUDA that he had returned the cheque as he wanted to keep alive his registration for allotment of an HIG house. In October 1998, the PUDA informed the complainant that all applicants were being refunded the registration fee deposit and his registration for HIG house could not be continued. In February 1997, i.e., well before he received the above-mentioned communication from the PUDA, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging unfair trade practice by the PUDA in denying him allotment of an HIG house. After considering the averments and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and the PUDA, the District Forum held that the advertisement issued by the PUDA in October 1989 was only for a demand survey for the above-mentioned three category of houses, in several cities and towns of Punjab and did not, therefore, entitle the complainant to allotment of an HIG house in sector 70, Mohali, as claimed by the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, disposed of the complaint by ordering refund of Rs. 3,000/- by the PUDA to the complainant and interest thereon @ 10% for three years, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7798 of 2003 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3333/2000) along with costs of Rs. 550/-. As noted above, by its impugned order the UT Commission disposed of the appeal filed by the complainant, slightly modifying the order of the District Forum.

3.         We have heard the parties and considered the documents filed before the lower Fora as well as those filed before us by the PUDA in response to the complainant’s application for production of certain documents by the former.

4.         The complainant’s main contentions are the same as before the Fora below, viz., (i) the advertisement issued by the PUDA in October 1989 was for allotment of, inter alia, HIG houses in sector 70, Mohali for which he had duly paid the initial registration fee; (ii) in that advertisement, there was no mention of the need to deposit of Rs. 4,000/- for allotment of HIG houses; (iii) the contention of the PUDA before the Consumer Fora that the allotment of HIG houses in Mohali was in response to another, earlier advertisement requiring deposit of Rs. 4,000/- is untenable; and (iv) he is, therefore, entitled to allotment of an HIG house in Mohali. No documentary evidence in support of the substantive contentions regarding the entitlement to allotment of an HIG house, the main prayer all along, have, however, been filed by the complainant, either before the lower Fora or before us.

5.         The PUDA, on the other hand, has filed documents in support of its contentions (as well as those requested by the complainant in the proceedings before us) that (i) the advertisement issued in October 1989 was only for demand survey for HIG, MIG and LIG houses in several cities and towns of Punjab; (ii) after assessment of the demand emerging from this survey, the proposal of constructing and allotting such houses in several cities was dropped; (iii) the allotment of single-storeyed HIG houses in Phase IX, S. A. S. Nagar was in response to an advertisement issued in February 1989 which required deposit of Rs. 4,000/- and the allotments were done September 1996, which was not relevant to the case of the complainant; (v) the two cases of allotment referred to by the complainant in support of his contention were, in fact, those in response to the earlier advertisement of February 1989 / allotments of September 1996 and done correctly; and (vi) the lower Fora have correctly held accordingly and awarded relief to the complainant in accordance with the ratio of the Apex Court’s relevant judgment.

6.         After going through the averments and the documents before us, we are satisfied that the contentions of the PUDA are indeed valid, as held by both the lower Fora and that there is no reason for us to interfere with the orders of the UT Commission in the complainant’s appeal no. 158 of 2004. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………..

( P. D. Shenoy)

PRESIDING MEMEBR

……………………………….

(Anupam Dasgupta)

MEMBER