SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1075/06 HUDA Vs. Sukhbir Singh by which while accepting appeal order dated 20.2.2006 passed by District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant was allotted plot No.1607-P, Sector 65, Faridabad by the opposite party vide allotment letter dated 29.10.2001. Complainant deposited Rs.27,110/- i.e. 10% of the tentative price of the plot with application on 29.12.2000 and thereafter deposited Rs.47,441/- i.e. 15% of the tentative price of the plot on 28.11.2001. The remaining price of the plot was to be paid in instalments. As the opposite party failed to develop the area and deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period to the complainant, the complainant moved application on 17.9.2002 to the opposite party for surrender of plot with prayer to refund the entire deposited amount. The opposite party accepted prayer of complainant, cancelled allotment of the plot and refunded Rs.24,504/- vide letter dated 10.3.2003 after deducting 10% of the total consideration, as per HUDA policy. After accepting refund, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that the plot was surrendered under compelling circumstances and requested that original plot or an alternate plot of the same size in the same sector may be allotted to him. Opposite party filed written statement and submitted that as the complainant had surrendered the plot voluntarily and requested refund, complainant is no more a consumer, hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to reallot the same plot or alternate plot of the same price along with interest etc. On appeal, learned State Commission vide impugned order while allowing appeal dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.