JUDGEMENT
R.BANUMATHI, J. -
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals are filed assailing the orders dated 19.07.2011 and 29.09.2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National Commission') dismissing the
Revision Petition No.671/2011 and also the Review Application No.142/2011,
thereby confirming the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short 'State Commission')
whereby it was observed that the appellant -complainant having accepted the
refund amount of 10% and was no longer a consumer and has no locus standi
to seek possession of the plot allotted to him.
(3.) Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as follows: - The appellant/complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.1048 in
Sector 64, Faridabad measuring 250 sq. yds. vide Memo No. 399 dated
01.01.2001 at the rate of Rs.1,865/ - per sq. yd. The appellant along with the application form had deposited 10% as earnest money and 15% of the sale
consideration was deposited on 22.01.2001. Balance amount of 75% of the
total cost was to be deposited by the appellant in six yearly equal
instalments with 15% interest per annum to Haryana Urban Development
Authority (for short 'HUDA'). HUDA issued the demand notice to the
appellant calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.59,782.50 vide Memo No.38698
dated 04.10.2002 on account of enhancement of the cost of the plot, which
as per the terms of allotment they have right to do so. The appellant has
failed to deposit the said amount and hence the possession of the plot was
not delivered to him. Alleging that there was deficiency on the part of
HUDA for not delivering the possession, the appellant filed a complaint
before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short
'District Forum') praying for issuance of direction to HUDA to hand over
the possession of the plot by adjusting the amount already deposited.
During the pendency of the said complaint before the District Forum, the
amount deposited by the appellant towards price of the plot was refunded to
and accepted by the appellant. The fact that the appellant had taken
refund was however not brought to the notice of the District Forum which
passed the award on 19.12.2005. The District Forum vide Order dated
19.12.2005 allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to re -allot the same plot to the appellant on the same price and hand over the
possession of the same to him. The District Forum ordered that the amount
already paid by the appellant to be adjusted against price of the plot now
to be allotted to the appellant as per the order. Additionally,
respondents were also directed to pay Rs.50,000/ - on account of mental
agony, harassment and damages and also Rs.5,000/ - on account of litigation
expenses.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.