Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the "Commission"). The issue before the Commissioner which was considered in the Revision Petition of the appellant was as follows : " When the possession of the plot originally allotted in a particular sector could not be given to the allottee for any reason for no fault of his and HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority) is required to allot an alternative plot in lieu thereof in any other sector, what price HUDA is to charge for the alternative plot allotted in the different sector."
(3.) The Commission was considering various cases and the case of HUDA vs. R.P. Chawla (Revision Petition Nos.17-18 of 1997) was taken as an illustrative case. Ultimately, the Commission came to hold as follows : "The issue before us is the allotment of alternative plot. It is also to be seen that if for no fault of the allottee, he is deprived of his plot allotted to him and in lieu of that he is allotted some other plot in the same or any other sector he cannot be asked to pay the price over and above of original plot which he will have to pay. In this case allottee would be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. The interest amount shall however, be payable from the date of respective deposits of the amounts." ;