GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SANJEEV KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 1/12/2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, 'National Commission'), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 10/5/2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, (for short, 'State Commission'), has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no 'deficiency of service' on the part of the petitioner as even though the respondent No.1/complainant had been allotted Plot No.288 on 6/5/2002, he did not carry out any construction from the year 2002 to 2013. It was only in the year 2013 that respondent No.1 had approached this Court by preferring CWP No.4633 of 2013 with a prayer that the vacant possession of Plot No.288 be delivered to him and this Court while disposing the said writ petition had directed the Chief Administrator, GMADA, to redress the grievances of respondent No.1. It was in compliance of this order that the petitioner had allotted an alternative plot (Plot No.294) to respondent No.1 on 24/9/2013 after obtaining his due consent. Therefore, the liability for increased cost of construction ought not to have been fastened on the petitioner and thus, the State Commission has erred by taking into account the period prior to 2013 for computing the inflated cost of construction. He also submits that since the plot was allotted for 'commercial purpose', resultantly, respondent No.1 would not be covered under the definition of 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) Heard.