LOVELY INTERNATIONAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY of 88 days in filing revision was condoned subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 which the petitioner has deposited. This amount will go to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

(2.) SUSHIL Kumar Jain was allotted an Industrial Plot bearing No. 181 of an area of 2250 sq. mtrs. in Sector 25, Part-II, Panipat on 11.4.2001 by the respondent/opposite party -Authority. Respondent wrote a letter on 31.10.2001 for depositing amount of that plot for an area of 3901 sq. mtrs. which Shri Jain deposited. Possession Certificate of the allotted plot was given on 24.2.2004 of an area of 2954.57 sq. mtrs. by the respondent. Respondent-Authority offered to refund the excess amount due to shortage in area. Instead of accepting the amount, the petitioner filed complaint which on contest, the District Forum allowed with direction to allot another plot of 1000 sq. mtrs. by the respondent-Authority. Dissatisfied with the Forum's order, the Authority filed appeal which has been allowed in terms of the impugned order. The State Commission has ordered refund of the excess amount with interest @ 9% p.a. by the Authority to the petitioner. Copy of allotment letter of aforesaid plot No. 181 is at pages-31 to 41. Condition No. 2 thereof which is material, reads as under:

(3.) IN this allotment letter, the area of this industrial plot is shown as 2250 sq. mtrs. It is not in dispute that the area of the plot actually handed over on 24.2.2004 was 2954.57 which was more than the area for which allotment letter was issued by the Authority. Under said condition No. 2 of the allotment letter, the area shown was tentative and was subject to adjustment in accordance with the actual measurement at the time of delivery of the plot. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment of second plot for which order was made by the District Forum. He was only entitled to the refund of money with interest. State Commission has, therefore, rightly set aside the District Forum's order and directed the petitioner-Authority to refund the excess amount with interest @ 9% per annum. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed. R.P. dismissed.