KRISHAN LAL S/O SHRI FAQUIR CHAND Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order dated 9th of December, 2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) passed in First Appeal No. 896 of 2008 reversing the order dated 2nd of November, 2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short the District Forum), vide which the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the petitioner/complainant directing the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority to transfer plot no. 1966, Sector -28, Panchkula in the name of one Ashu Bala d/o Roshan Lal and also to pay a lump -sum compensation of Rs.2000/ - for harassment, costs etc.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner/complainant had applied for allotment of three residential plots; one of the size of 10 marla in the category reserved for 'employees' as he was an employee of the State police department and the other two of 6 marla each in the 'general category'. The petitioner/complainant appears to have been extraordinarily lucky, inasmuch as he was successful for the allotment of all the three plots taken out in the draw of lots. The petitioner/complainant claims that he had deposited 10% of the cost of the plot at the time of registration and had also promptly deposited the balance 15% after being informed that he had been successful in the draw of lots to constitute the earnest money. It is the say of the petitioner/complainant that when the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority asked him to opt for the retention of the plot either under the 'employees category' or the 'general category' as he could not be given the benefit under both the categories; he opted for retaining the two plots of 6 marla each in the 'general category' and surrendered the 10 marla plot allotted under the 'employees category'. While the petitioner/complainant claims that he had requested the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority to adjust the 25% earnest money deposited against plot no. 377, Sector -27 (employees quota) against plot no. 1966, Sector -28 retained by him in the 'general category'; the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority failed to accede to his request and cancelled the allotment of plot no. 1966 on the pretext of the total earnest money i.e. balance of 15% not having been deposited within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of the allotment. Contending also that when an enquiry had been floated with regard to the balance amount to be paid against the said plot no. 1966, the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority had failed to give him the details and further his request for transfer of the said plot in the name of Ashu Bala d/o Roshan Lal had been declined. This, the petitioner/complainant claims, had forced him to approach the District Forum who vide the order referred to above had directed the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority to transfer the said plot in the name of said Ashu Bala. Aggrieved thereupon, the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority had filed appeal before the State Commission who accepted their appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

(3.) HAVING lost the right to transfer plot no. 1966 to Ashu Bala as granted by the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition.