KRITI SHARMA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 30/5/2011 in First Appeal no. 864 of 2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, the 'State Commission') upholding order dtd. 24/10/2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short, the 'District Forum') in consumer complaint no. 321/2005.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case according to the petitioner are that she applied for a residential plot in Sector 2, Palwal in July 1997 and paid Rs.46,470.00 to the respondent. On 18/2/1998 plot no. 228 measuring 300 sq. meters was allotted at a tentative price of Rs.4,64,700.00. This price was subsequently revised to Rs.7,14,703.00. She paid the initial 25% of the total cost and other installments amounting to Rs.7,14,703.00. Despite several efforts, possession of the developed plot was not handed over by the respondent compelling the petitioner to apply for surrender of the plot on 19/2/2004. The respondent cancelled the allotment and refunded Rs.6,38,906.00 on 17/4/2004 after deducting Rs.75,797.00. The petitioner's requests for refund of the entire amount being to no avail, consumer complaint 321 of 2005 was filed before the District Forum which was allowed, on contest, with directions to refund the amount with interest @ 12%, compensation of Rs.25,000.00 and litigation costs of Rs.2,500.00. On appeal, the State Commission set aside this order on the ground that the deduction was as per respondent's policy dtd. 14/12/1995 vide Memo no. A-11-P-95/33924-51. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that she had been compelled to cancel the allotment since the respondent failed to hand over possession of the developed plot of land with all amenities even after 6 years of allotment which was violative of the terms and conditions of the allotment. The respondents were, in addition, seeking further enhancement of cost. The deduction of the amount was, therefore, challenged as arbitrary and illegal. The setting aside of the order of the District Forum by the State Commission is stated to be erroneous and unjustified since the respondent had defaulted in not handing over possession of the flat as per the terms of the allotment and, therefore, was not entitled to deduct the sum of Rs.75,797.00.