Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, ... vs Rajesh Kumar Shukla on 13 May, 2010
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
when the complainant left the school and before the present
complaint was filed, the OP was requested a number of times to
refund the amount but they had been putting him off on one
pretext or the other. This fact is mentioned in para 3 and 4 of the
complaint and when we peruse the reply filed by the OP, we find
that this contention has not been denied, at all. It, therefore,
becomes clear that the complainant had been demanding the
amount and the OP had been putting him off on one pretext or the
other. The Hon'ble National Commission in case Commissioner,
Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai v. Rajesh Kumar Shukla, III (2010)
CPJ 112 (NC) under similar circumstances held that where the
complainant asked for refund of the amount lawfully deposited by
the complainant, it will give a continuous cause of action as the OP
failed to refund the initial deposit. The contention of the OP that
the complaint has become barred by time was over ruled and the
refund of the amount was ordered.
The Talagang Cooperative Group Housing ... vs Vandana Sharma, on 5 March, 2008
In another case, Talagang
Cooperative G/H Ltd. v. Vandana Sharma, IV (2009) CPJ 161
(NC), a sum of Rs.1 lac was deposited as equalization fee with the
Cooperative Society which was not refunded to the complainant.
The OP alleged that the complaint is barred by time. In that case
also, the refund of the amount was ordered.
1