SANTOSH GUPTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 9.5.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred as the State Commission) in F.A. No.1260 /2006, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) through Estate Officer, Faridabad vs. Smt. Santosh Gupta through G.P.A. Raj Kumar, is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition filed on behalf of complainant, Smt. Santosh Gupta. The State Commission, vide impugned order allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad on 24.10.2005 in Consumer Complaint No.425/2005, filed on 7.2.2005.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the complainant/ petitioner Santosh Gupta was allotted Plot No.1155 -P in Sector -46, Faridabad by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on 17.1.1991 at a tentative price of Rs.3,39,383/ -. The complainant deposited 25% of the consideration amount, but on her failure to deposit the balance amount, the allotment in question was cancelled, after serving notice upon the complainant under the relevant provisions of the HUDA Act. The complainant filed appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad, wherein she was directed to deposit the balance price of the plot within 15 days from the date of the Award i.e. 12.11.1996. The complainant was offered an alternative plot No.638, Sector -45, Faridabad in lieu of the plot allotted earlier and the complainant submitted her consent in the shape of an affidavit dated 12.6.1998. However, the complainant did not come forward to take physical possession of the said plot, taking the plea that the basic amenities, like school, shopping center, telephone exchange etc. had not been created and there was no proper entrance to Sector -45, Faridabad. The consumer complaint in question was filed through General Power of Attorney (GPA) Raj Kumar who is a resident of Faridabad on behalf of complainant, stating that alternative plot no.248 or 247 in Sector -46, Faridabad be allotted to the complainant on the same price in lieu of the plots earlier allotted. It was also demanded that interest @ 18% per annum on the total amount deposited with the OP -HUDA be given to them and further amount of Rs.30,000/ - as compensation and Rs.3,000/ - as litigation cost should be given.

(3.) The District Forum, Faridabad vide order dated 24.10.2005, allowed the said complaint filed in the year 2005 and gave direction to the HUDA to allot plot no.12, Sector -46, Faridabad in lieu of the plots earlier allotted i.e. Plot No.1155 ­P, Sector -46, Faridabad and the alternative plot no.638, Sector -45, Faridabad on similar price. The OP -HUDA was also directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant on the amount deposited by them and not to charge any kind of penal interest, penalty or extension fee etc. The complainant was also ordered to be paid compensation of Rs.25,000/ - on account of mental agony and Rs.2500/ - as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP -HUDA challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant through her GPA is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.