PRAVEEN CHANDER TANDON Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 5/9/2011 in First Appeal No. 1086/2002 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (in short, the 'State Commission') arising from order dtd. 11/2/2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Case no. 133 of 1994.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, as stated by the petitioner, are that the petitioners purchased plot no 893, Sector 21, Gurgaon which was allotted to one Smt. Kamla Khosla by the respondent, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on 8/11/1985. The petitioners approached respondent for re-allotment of the said plot which was done on 4/7/1994 on the same terms and conditions as per which possession was to be offered to the petitioners after development of the plot. However, the respondent failed to do so despite payment of all installments including the enhanced cost despite several requests. Aggrieved, petitioners approached the District Forum in 2001 seeking possession, compensation and interest @24% p.a. on the amount deposited. The District Forum vide order dtd. 11/2/2002 directed possession within one month with interest as per HUDA's policy. The respondent approached the State Commission in appeal which allowed the same and held that a re-allottee cannot be treated as a consumer who is entitled to reliefs claimed. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the District Forum had held the respondent guilty of deficiency of service since the respondent had duly transferred the plot in the names of the petitioners and issued a re-allotment letter. All installments had been paid including the enhanced amount and therefore the petitioners had stepped into the shoes of the original allottee with the same rights. It is contended that the State Commission has erred in relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in HUDA Vs. Raje Ram, I (2009) CPJ 56 wrongly categorized the petitioners as a third party which is distinguishable from the instant case.