H U D A Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent was an applicant before petitioner for allotment of plot in Sector 46, Faridabad, Haryana for which he also made deposit of Rs. 3,31,548 through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chandigarh. Though notice of draw of pots was published in newspaper, draw of Sector 46 was not held under policy of Government for allotment of plot to oustees. Aggrieved respondent knocked Consumer Fora and claimed adequate compensation for petitioner retaining sum of Rs. 3,31,548 for considerable period from Sept. 2006 to March 2007, other ancillary reliefs too were sought in complaint. Though deposit was refunded by petitioner to respondent along with interest @ 5.5% that did not satisfy respondent who claimed adequate compensation. The District Forum however on appreciation of pleadings of parties upholding cause of respondent directed petitioner to pay simple interest @ 18% p.a. on deposits made by respondent. The aforesaid finding was also affirmed by State Commission in appeal.

(2.) Without dilating the issue further as to eligibility of respondent, a prospective buyer to claim compensation, Counsel for petitioner puts reliance on a decision of National Commission in R.P. 1583/2005 titled Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. v. Krishan Pal Chander, 2010 1 CPJ 99(NC), in which it was held that for an application for allotment of plot/house given by complainant he was a prospective investor and not a consumer merely on submission of application for allotment till allotment is made in his favour. The factual backgrounds of instant case are identical to this case and that being so, finding so recorded by State Commission which was not sustainable in law is set aside and revision petition resultantly succeeds with no order as to cost.