SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 711/2006, HUDA & Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that OP allotted a residential plot No. 2149 measuring 385 sq. yards in Sector 2, Palwal vide allotment letter dated 8.2.2000 to complainant for a tentative price of Rs. 4,99,522. As per terms of the allotment, complainant deposited Rs. 2,63,187 including the installment and enhanced price of the plot. Possession of the plot was offered to the complainant on 10.3.2003 after providing basic amenities. Complainant instead of taking possession of the plot moved an application dated 8.12.2003 to the OP showing his inability to pay the balance price of the plot and, thus, by surrendering the plot requested for refund of the deposited amount. OP accepted request and refunded amount after deducting 10% of the total consideration price of the plot as per surrender policy. Complainant after taking refund, filed complaint with the plea that complainant surrendered the plot under compelling circumstances because development work was not completed and offer of possession was only a paper possession. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint with a prayer to direct OP to hand over possession of the plot along with interest and compensation. OP contested complaint and submitted that after surrendering the plot and taking refund, complainant was no more consumer of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint against which, OP filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot was surrendered under compelling circumstances on account of not providing basic amenities in the area where allotted plot was situated and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be admitted.