NATHU SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAWS(HRCDRC)-2013-10-13
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 11,2013

NATHU SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 1131 of 2004 - The Estate Officer, HUDA Vs. Nathu Singh by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was partly modified.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner was allotted Plot No. 751/2008, Ambala vide allotment letter dated 12.4.1989 for Rs.51,290/ -. Complainant deposited price of the plot, but OP did not offer possession of the plot. Complainant surrendered the plot vide letter dated 6.3.2003 and asked for refund of money. As money was not refunded, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that offer of possession was made to the complainant vide letter dated 4.10.1996 and as per policy of the HUDA, complainant is liable to pay 10% of the total price in case of surrender of plot and deduction of 10% of the total price of the plot was made as per policy of HUDA; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund the total deposited amount with interest @ 10% p.a. and further awarded Rs.1,000/ - as cost of proceedings. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as plot was not developed the possession was not given in 3 to 4 years, petitioner surrendered the plot and he was entitled to receive full deposited amount along with interest and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in modifying the order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that inspite of offer of possession, petitioner has not taken possession of the plot and surrendered plot. In such circumstances, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.