SUDESH GUPTA Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Sudesh Gupta challenging the order dated 12.07.2011 passed in First Appeal No. 2909 of 2004 by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula (in short the State Commission).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the original allottee of the plot Kasturi Lal Singla gave an application to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on 03.01.2000 for transfer of the plot in the name of the complainant Smt. Sudesh Gupta. The HUDA vide its order dated 10.01.2000 permitted the transfer with certain conditions. The complainant complied with all conditions except that the complainant did not deposit Rs.5,258/- as was asked to be deposited within stipulated time on the ground that the original allottee had paid about Rs.37,0000/- in excess to the opposite party. The opposite party did not accept the assertion of the complainant and issued reminder to the complainant to deposit the amount. Later on, the complainant deposited this amount on 17.04.2000. However, in the meanwhile, the policy was changed on 08.03.2000 and it was required that the original allottee will execute a conveyance deed in favour of the transferee. There were certain other changes in the policy. Because of the change of the policy, the transfer could not be allowed as the amount was not deposited within the stipulated time in the letter dated 10.01.2000 before the commencement of the new policy. However, the opposite party did not cancel the application and kept the matter pending. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint bearing No.5 of 2002 before the District Forum, Ambala with the following prayers:-

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement. It was asserted that the case of the complainant can only be considered under the new policy, which commenced from 08.03.2000 as he did not deposit the required amount demanded vide letter dated 10.01.2000 within the stipulated time. The District Forum, however, passed the following order on 21.09.2004:-