SUMIT CHAUDHARY Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision there is challenge to order dated 14.10.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (for short 'State Commission'). Vide impugned order, State Commission accepted the appeal of respondents, challenging order dated 16.1.2006, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short as District Forum').

(2.) Brief facts are that residential plot No. 1558 measuring 209 sq. metres in Sector-2, Palwal, was allotted to the petitioner by respondents, vide allotment letter dated 23.2.1998. Tentative price of the said plot was Rs. 3,23,741. Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,40,944, being 25% of the total cost and instalments with respondents. As per petitioner, respondents failed to develop the area and no basic facilities were provided. Petitioner approached the respondents and requested them to develop the area but respondents failed to do so. Thereafter, on 29.9.2003, petitioner submitted an application to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad seeking cancellation/surrender of plot and refund of his entire deposit. Considering the request of petitioner, Estate officer, HUDA cancelled the allotment of the above said plot and refunded an amount of Rs. 82,150 to the petitioner, after deducting 10% of the total consideration and the same was accepted by the petitioner, without any protest.

(3.) It is alleged by petitioner that he has surrendered the plot under compelling circumstances as after depositing the tentative price of the plot in question, respondents failed to develop the area and also failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot in question due to which he was not in a position to raise construction over the plot. It is further alleged by the petitioner that respondents wrongly deducted 10% of the consideration amount since petitioner did not voluntarily surrendered the plot, rather it was a surrender of plot under compelling circumstances due to non- development of the area. Thus, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum and sought the following reliefs: