HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAMLESH GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 357/ 2009, HUDA has approached this with the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner/HUDA against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No. 337 of 2007, by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and gave the following directions to the opposite party/ petitioner/HUDA:

(2.) We have heard Mr. Badhran, learned Counsel for the petitioner/HUDA. At the outset, we may notice that there is a delay of 66 days in filing the petition and application for condonation of delay has been filed but, in our view, the petitioner/HUDA has failed to make out a case for condonation of delay on the grounds set out in the application and, therefore, the application is declined.

(3.) On merits, Mr. Badhran submits that once the plot in question had come under litigation, it was open for the respondent/ complainant to have sought refund of the deposited amount which would have been paid to him immediately on his request and he cannot seek the allotment of alternative plot nor could the Fora below grant the said relief. We see no merit in this contention because as per the HUDA's own policy if an allotted plot comes into litigation, the petitioner/HUDA is duty-bound to allot a plot in the same sector or in adjoining sector. We, therefore, see no merits in the present petition, which is dismissed on both the counts of limitation as well as on merits.