(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 153/08 -HUDA Vs. Rama Nand Dhaka by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted plot no. 2632 in Sector 18, Panipat vide Memo dated 30.07.1998. As the OP/respondent failed to develop the area and deliver actual physical possession, complainant filed complaint No.61/2002 before District Forum, Panchkula seeking refund of the deposited amount along with interest and compensation. OP contested complaint, but learned District Forum vide order dated 25.3.2003 allowed complaint and directed OP to refund deposited amount with 10% p.a. interest along with Rs.1,000/ - as costs. Order of District Forum was challenged before State Commission in Appeal No.1578/2003 which was dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous vide order dated 6.1.2006, as parties compromised the matter and complainant agreed to receive payment with 9% p.a. interest instead of 10% per annum interest allowed by the District Forum. Complainant withdrew Execution Petition filed before District Forum on 25.3.2003 and OP sent cheque of Rs.4,86,125/ - to the complainant, but complainant instead of receiving the amount filed second complaint No. 82/2007 and claimed relief to retain the plot in question on the ground that financial position of the complainant had improved. OP contested complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable in view of principle of res judicata and further submitted that in the earlier complaint order for refund of amount had already been passed; the question of retaining the plot by the complainant by taking 'U ' turn does not lie and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to receive due payment towards plot no. 2632 and pay Rs.2,000/ - as costs. OP filed appeal against the order of District Forum which was allowed vide order dated 15.7.2011 and complaint was dismissed. Complainant filed Revision Petition No. 3023/2011 before National Commission and this Commission vide order dated 26.2.2013 set aside order of State Commission and matter was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. After remand, learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and complaint was dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/ - against which, this revision petition has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as Appeal No. 153/2008 was filed with delay of 90 days and as earlier order dated 15.7.2011 of State Commission was set aside by National Commission, it was obligatory on the part of State Commission to pass fresh order on application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission has not condoned delay by the impugned order. It was further submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint on the ground of res adjudicata; hence, revision petition be admitted.