PUSHPA JAIN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision petition under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arises on account of suo motu action taken by this Commission on a complaint received from the petitioners. Complaint was received on 3. 5. 2002. Notice was issued to the respondent-HUDA for this day. Meanwhile original records of the Haryana State Commission in Appeal No. 436/2000 were called for and have already been received.

(2.) THIS case shows gross impropriety on behalf of the HUDA in not complying with the order of the State Commission and leaving the petitioners complainants to knock at the doors of the District Forum and then the District Forum adjourning the matter on the request of HUDA without appreciation of the issue involved in the case and thus causing a great deal of harassment and mental agony to the complainants an old couple.

(3.) COMPLAINANTS were allotted a plot of land but possession of which by the respondent could not be delivered because the plot was involved in some litigation. On a complaint filed by the complainants, District Forum directed refund of the amount to the complainants with interest @ 15% per annum. The order of the District Forum is dated 16. 12. 2000.