HUDA AND ORS. Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/Opposite Parties have filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') against impugned orders dated 23.05.2011 and 9.11.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission').

(2.) Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant was allotted shop-cum-office in March, 1997 by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties. Respondent paid 15% of the price at the time of allotment. Remaining amount was to be deposited within four years in eight half yearly installments, which respondent has paid. The petitioners offered possession to the respondent. Since there was no sewerage line, respondent requested the petitioners to provide sewerage line. Petitioners informed the respondent, that sewerage line has been laid in the area in August, 1997 and occupation certificate has been issued on 28.07.1997.

(3.) It is the case of respondent, that sewerage line was laid in August, 1997, whereas possession was offered in July, 1997. Thus, occupation of the building has no relevancy with the offer of possession. Thereafter, respondent made representation to the Estate Officer, HUDA, which rejected the same. Then, respondent filed an appeal before Administrator, HUDA challenging the order of the Estate Officer, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 16.10.2003.