HARISH KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short 'the State Commission') by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent-Authority against the order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short 'the District Forum') by which the District Forum had accepted the complaint of the petitioner. Petitioner, Shri Harish Kumar is the original complainant in this case. The District Forum while accepting the complaint had granted the following reliefs vide its order dated 22.8.2006 :

(2.) Briefly stated, admitted case of the parties is that Plot No.549 measuring 310.5 sq. meters located in Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat was originally allotted to one Smt. Omwati vide memo No.9138 on 29.7.1998. The possession of the said plot was offered by the respondent-Authority vide memo No.5602 on 13.6.2001. Thereafter, the said plot was purchased by the petitioner from the original allottee and was accordingly transferred in the name of the petitioner Harish Kumar vide letter bearing allotment no. 11856 dated 3.10.2001. The petitioner submitted an application dated 18.5.2004 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat stating therein that he has not been able to pay the balance installments in respect of the price of the plot and by surrendering the plot sought refund of the amount deposited by him as per HUDA policy. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner was accepted and he was refunded a sum of Rs. 5,87,515/- vide cheque no.1110196 dated 2.8.2004 after deducting 10% of the consideration amount as per HUDA policy. The facts of the case are not under dispute upto this stage. Later on, the petitioner filed the present complaint by taking the plea that he had surrendered the plot under compelling circumstances because the respondent-Authority had not delivered possession of the plot after completion of the development works in the area. He further took the plea that the development works like shopping centre, High school, dispensary, post office and telephone exchange in that sector had not been established which according to him were necessary before offering the physical possession of the plot. Thus, the petitioner sought re-allotment of the plot, payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the total deposited amount from the date of allotment till the date of refund, to adjust 10% of deducted amount in the price of alternative plot along with 18% interest and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

(3.) Respondent-Authority resisted the complaint and filed its reply thereto denying the allegations of the petitioner and took the plea that since the petitioner was facing financial hardships and was not in a position to pay the balance price of the plot and had voluntarily surrendered the same vide its application dated 18.5.2004 received in the respondent-Authority office on 19.5.2004, the respondent-Authority had accepted the request and refunded the amount as per HUDA policy. The respondent further took the plea that all the basic amenities in the area like sewerage, water, roads and electricity had already been provided and thereafter possession of the plot was offered. With these averments, it was pleaded by the by the respondents that the complaint be dismissed.