ASHOK SHARMA Vs. ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the Original Complainant, namely, Ashok Sharma, through GPA Neeru Garg, against the Order dtd. 13/12/2010, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 988 of 2006, whereby the State Commission, while allowing the Appeal, preferred by the Respondents herein, has set aside the Order dtd. 22/2/2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum/Commission, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint No.827 of 2003 and dismissed the Complaint. Vide its Order dtd. 22/2/2006, the District Commission had accepted the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Petitioner herein, and issued the following directions:

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant/Petitioner had purchased Plot No. 833, measuring 350 sq. yards, in Sector-55, Faridabad, in an open auction held on 10/7/1989 for a total price of Rs.3,10,000.00 being the highest bidder. He paid the amounts of Rs.31,000.00 and Rs.45,500.00 being 10% and 15% price of the plot in question on 10/7/1989 and 15/9/1989 respectively but possession of the plot was not given to him as the development works were not complete due to unauthorized encroachments. On 29/10/1997, the Respondents issued a letter to the Complainant/Petitioner, asking him to raise construction over the plot in question. It is averred by the Complainant/Petitioner in the Complaint that possession was not delivered to him and, therefore, on receipt of the letter dtd. 29/10/1997 he appeared personally before the Estate Officer and submitted written reply and also prayed for giving possession. The Respondents demanded the remaining 75% cost of the plot and certain amount towards penalty, interest and extension fee. According to the Complainant/Petitioner, the amount was wrongly calculated and the Respondents were not entitled to charge any amount and even the amount of instalment. The Complainant/Petitioner requested the Respondents to correct the calculation but the Respondents did not correct the same. On 8/3/1999 the Complainant/Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,35,000.00 being the remaining 75% cost of the plot in question. Even till the date of filing of the Complaint, while the possession was not handed over to the Complainant/Petitioner, there was no development in the particular area. Accordingly, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents herein on the said counts, the Complainant/Petitioner preferred the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission, seeking a direction to the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs.3,10,000.00 with interest and also pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 towards harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that during the course of proceedings before the District Commission, the Complainant/Petitioner sought permission to amend the Complaint as he was then interested in taking possession of the plot in question. After hearing learned Counsel for both the Parties, the District Commission granted the said permission.