KAMLESH GULATI Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the State Haryana, Punjab dated 22.11.2010 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent opposite party; set aside the impugned order and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that pursuant to the scheme floated by the respondent opposite party, the petitioner had applied for allotment of 10 marlas plot in general category in Sector 12-A Panchkula. As per the scheme, oustees applicants were to be given priority over the general category applicants in allotment of plots. There were only 10 flats available for allotment in Sector 12A Panchkula and the oustees applicants outnumbered the available plots. Thus, the opposite party vide notice dated 01.09.2013 as also general notice published in Indian Express and the Tribune dated 25.09.2003 informed the general applicants that in view of number of oustees applicants being more than the plots available, there would be no draw of plots in the general category in respect of plots in Sector 12-A Panchkula. Vide notice, general category applicants were called upon to give their option for consideration of allotment of plots in other sectors failing which earnest money deposited by the applicant was to be refunded without interest. The complainant did not give any option. Therefore, her earnest money was refunded. Being aggrieved of the refund of money, the complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging that the respondent opposite party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice inasmuch as the complainant was never served with the above referred notice. The complainant also took the plea that as she had applied for 10 marla plot in Sector 12-A Panchkula and deposited the booking amount, the opposite party was bound to include her application in draw of plots. The complainant thus prayed that the respondent opposite party be directed to allot her 10 marla plot in Sector 17, 21-Part III, 23, 27, 28 or any other sector in Panchkula.

(3.) On appearance, the opposite party filed written version denying the allegations of deficiency in service and justified its stand.