H U D A Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises from the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, HUDA, which had been filed by them against the order of District Forum allowing the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Plot No. 66 in Sector 21 at Bhiwani was allotted to one Smt. Kamla Verma, who after paying full price was given possession and sale deed was also executed. After some time, the plot was sold by her to the complainant, K.K. Agarwal for which a registered sale deed was executed. When the purchaser moved the petition to change the name in the record, it was not done on the grounds that five instalments were due from the original purchaser. The District Forum summoned the record of HUDA, of this case and were then told that five instalments stood paid. It is in these circumstances the District Forum directed the petitioner to register the transfer in favour of the complainant/respondent and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed in limine.

(3.) It was argued before us that the State Commission's order is wrong inasmuch as the complainant is not a consumer vis-a-vis the petitioner. It is amazing how a Public Authority like HUDA can take such a stand. Complainant purchased the plot from the original allottee, got it registered, the services being rendered by the petitioner is of registering the transfer. By not registering the transfer, based a legitimate and registered sale deed without any proper reason is deficiency in service. It is on this ground that both the lower Fora have passed the order. We see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. This petition is dismissed with additional cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Revision Petition dismissed.