HUDA Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the Haryana Urban Development authority (HUDA) as the appellant and Raj Rani Dhanda for the respondent.

(3.) After perusing the order of the National Commission and hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that the National Commission has held that the statutory obligations of HUDA and plot-holder under the provisions of the HUDA Act and the Regulations are not acts or omissions constituting "deficiency in service" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.