SURESH KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 183/2002 HUDA Vs. Suresh Kumar by which order passed by the District Forum dated 22.11.2001 was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant purchased residential plot in auction bid on 27.1.1995 and paid 1/4th price of Rs.1,38,025/- on the same day, but in spite of repeated requests possession was not given to him even after expiry of 6 years from the date of auction. It was further alleged that on verification he came to know that dead sewerage line was passing underneath the plot hence requested for change of plot but OP-respondent remained negligent and deficient in removing encroachment and giving service. He further alleged that rest of the payment was to be made in 6 instalments from 27.4.1996 to 27.10.1998 along with interest but as possession was not handed over to him, instalments were not to be paid, but even then from time to time under protest he paid some amount. It was alleged that he may be awarded compensation along with interest on the deposited amount and OP-Respondent may be directed to remove encroachment and fix fresh instalments from the date of delivery of possession. OP-Respondent denied allegations of the complainant and further submitted that from time to time petitioner sought time for depositing instalments and he deposited some instalments in part and till today Rs.10,28,383/- are due with the petitioner upto 27.2.2001. It was denied that possession was not offered to complainant and further it was denied that any dead sewerage line was passing underneath the allotted plot and prayed that complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the OP to remove encroachments and handover possession to the complainant and further directed that OP would pay 12% interest on the deposited amount and further directed that remaining amount of the plot be paid in two bi-monthly instalments without any interest. OP challenged this order before the State Commission and learned State Commission by the impugned order set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint on the ground that complaint does not fall within the purview of consumer as plot was purchased in an open auction.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner could not assail impugned order on any other count and in such circumstances, petition is liable to be dismissed.