HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 22.5.2009, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab(for short, 'State Commission'). Alongwith present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 760 days has also been filed.

(2.) PETITIONER /complainant filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for shot, 'Act') through its constituted General Power of Attorney namely Sh. Satpaul Verma, alleging deficiency on the part of respondent/o.p. that petitioner had applied for one Kanal of plot in Mohali in the year 1974 and deposited a sum of Rs.1350/ - as earnest money. Thereafter, petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 69,000/ - with the respondent. But, till date, no plot has been allotted to the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT in its written statement admitted that petitioner had applied for allotment of plot and also deposited the money as aforesaid. It is stated that petitioner failed to exercise the option with regard to the allotment of plot. As such, petitioner was not entitled to be considered for draw of lots. Accordingly, earnest money was decided to be refunded but cheque sent to the petitioner was received back undelivered, hence, there is no deficiency.