REEMA SAHARAN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 19.10.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1513/2010, vide which, while allowing appeal, the order dated 18.08.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, was set aside. The District Forum vide the said order had allowed the complaint filed by the present petitioner and ordered the OP to allot an alternate plot to the complainant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the OP, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) allotted plot no. 123 measuring 135 sq. mtrs. in residential Sector-5, Part-3 of Gurgaon to Shri Dharam Singh Punia, original allottee and an allotment letter was issued by HUDA on 4.6.1990 vide their memo No. 1058 dated 05.06.90. It was stated in the said letter that the area of this plot was 135 sq. mtr. and its tentative price was ?86,010/-. Further, there is a possession certificate on record saying that Shri Virender Singh, Junior Engineer in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon had delivered the possession of the said plot to the allottee Dharam Singh Punia through his General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, Om Prakash Saharan on 11.05.2006. It is interesting to observe that in this possession certificate, the area of the said plot has been mentioned as 209.25 sq. mtr. instead of 135 sq. mtr. as mentioned in the allotment letter. The sale-deed was also executed by HUDA on 09.08.2006 in favour of the original allottee through his GPA holder Om Prakash Saharan. In the said sale-deed also, the area of the plot has been mentioned as 209.25 sq. mtr. The present petitioner/complainant purchased the said plot from the original allottee Dharam Singh Punia through his GPA holder Om Prakash Saharan and a sale-deed dated 20.11.2006 was affected in her favour. In the said sale-deed also, the area of the plot has been mentioned as 209.25sq. mtr. The permission for sale is also stated to have been given by the HUDA vide Memo No. 7334 dated 31.10.2006 in favour of vendee. A copy of the reallotment letter No. 448 dated 19.01.2007 issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon in favour of the petitioner/complainant is on record saying that reallotment of plot No. 123 measuring 209.25 sq. mtr. was being done in favour of the complainant.

(3.) It has been stated in the complaint that on 26.06.2007, the complainant submitted building construction plan on the said plot and deposited the necessary fees. She approached the concerned Junior Engineer in the office of HUDA for getting physical possession of the said plot but the said official did not take any affirmative action. She was informed by her architect that the plot was not available exactly as per the construction letter. She, then, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP HUDA for denial of plot measuring 209.25 sq. mtr. and filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed and the OP was directed to allot an alternative plot of the same size in the same line and in the same sector and if the same was not available, then to allot in the adjoining sector on the same rates. The OP was also directed to pay interest to the complainant as per HUDA rates on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the delivery of the possession. The OP was also directed to pay ?10,000/- to the complainant for harassment and also ?5,000/- as cost of litigation. An appeal against this order filed by HUDA was, however, allowed by the State Commission on the ground that the complainant being a re-allottee, cannot be considered to be a 'consumer' and that she had full knowledge about the factual position of the plot at the time of purchase.