HUDA Vs. NARESH KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 60 days in filing revision petition for which application for condonation of delay has been filed stating inter alia therein that revision petition could not be filed in time due to procedural delay in processing at different levels. For the reasonings assigned in the application, delay of 60 days is hereby condoned.

(2.) Factual matrix are that respondent was allotted residential plot No. 139 in Sector 3, Fatehabad for consideration value of Rs.3,19,370 on 26.10.99. Since physical possession could not be delivered 'to respondent even after lapse of 3 years, he sought refund of deposit, taking recourse to Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency filing complaint with District Forum. District Forum took notice of the fact that though offer of possession of site was made on 28.8.01, authority was blaming respondent that he did not turn up to take physical possession of site. District Forum however, on consideration of pleadings of the parties, having overruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner while accepting claim directed petitioner to refund deposit amount made by respondent along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The aforesaid finding of District Forum was also affirmed in appeal by State Commission. It is how that the petitioner is in revision.

(3.) Contentions are sought to be reiterated that except affidavit respondent had not led other evidence before District Forum that possession of site was not developed and that apart even though possession was offered, respondent had not turned up to secure possession of site. Last argument on behalf of petitioner was that since there has been escalation in cost of land respondent cannot be benefited twice even availing interest on deposit. It seems that after complaint was filed in June, 01, respondent offered possession jrf site during pendency of proceeding on 28.8.01. Counsel for petitioner could not show evidence except making submission that site had been developed and possession was offered to respondent in time. I am of the view that finding recorded by State Commission, affirming order of District Forum is not erroneous warranting interference. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.