HUDA Vs. ANITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 15.05.2009, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 632/2003, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) vs. Anita Devi, vide which, while dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation as well as on merits, the order dated 09.10.2002, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, dated 09.10.2002, in Consumer Complaint No. 206/2002, filed on 23.05.2002 by the present respondent, Anita Devi, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint are that plot no. 2281 in Sector-15 was originally allotted to Smt. Mohinder Kaur Saluja vide allotment letter dated 06.11.1992. Further vide re-allotment letter dated 23.05.1997, the said plot was allotted to the complainant Anita Devi and Savitri Devi. The possession of the said plot was offered by HUDA to the complainant vide letter dated 30.05.2002. It is stated by HUDA in the memo of revision petition that as per letter dated 11.03.2002, issued by the Executive Engineer, the area was fully developed and the development works had also been completed. The complainant/respondent filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that HUDA had made an inordinate delay in offering possession to them and hence, they should be held liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by them with the HUDA for the period of said delay. The District Forum, allowed the appeal, vide order dated 09.10.2002 and directed payment of interest on the amount deposited before 23.05.1998 @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 23.05.1998 till 30.05.2002 and on the amount deposited after 23.05.1998 w.e.f. the date of deposit till 30.05.2002 and also to give Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against the said order, the HUDA challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal, having been dismissed vide impugned order, the HUDA is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) During the pendency of the revision petition, the same was dismissed in default on 08.09.2015, because of the non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on that date. An application M.A. No. 172/2016 was filed for restoration of the petition after a delay of 173 days. However, in the interest of justice, the said application was allowed and the petition was restored to its original number. The notice was sent to the respondent at her fresh address, but she did not appear despite service.