KRISHAN Vs. ESTATE OFFICER HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Complainant being aggrieved by order dated 5.4.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.2403 of 2005, has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'Act'). Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 310 days has also been filed.

(2.) Petitioner had filed a consumer complaint against the Respondent/Opposite Party on the allegation that Plot No.875 Sector-46 Urban Estate Faridabad was originally allotted to Sh. Anil Kumar Daver, vide allotment letter dated 10.5.1990. Said Anil Kumar sold the plot in question to Harinder Singh on 24.4.2004. The petitioner has purchased the said plot from Harinder Singh, vide re-allotment letter No.14882 dated 19.4.2005. As per version of the petitioner, he had deposited the entire amount as demanded by respondent but the respondent failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot in question. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that the basic amenities in the area were not completed. The petitioner approached the respondent to deliver him physical possession and to develop the area, but respondent did not pay any heed to his request. Thus, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, petitioner filed a consumer complaint.

(3.) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, 'District Forum'), vide order dated 13.9.2005 allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the Respondent to allot an alternative plot in the same sector in lieu of originally allotted plot on the similar price and not charge any kind of interest, penalty etc. It further directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner on account of escalation of the construction price and also to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.