M/S. MERA BABA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. 551 AGGARWAL CYBER PLAZA,TOWER Vs. RITU AGGARWAL W/O SH.ABHISHEK AGGARWAL, R/O 603,SECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 111 of 2014, Smt. Ritu Aggarwal Vs. M/s. Mera Baba Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, complaint was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent booked flat measuring 250 sq. yds. with OP/petitioner on 31.3.2006 and deposited Rs. 3,30,000.00 and remaining amount was payable in instalments after allotment. Plot was to be allotted within 12 months from the registration, failing which, OP was liable to pay interest. It was further submitted that complainant also purchased rights of Daya Ram Goyal pertaining to one plot and that plot was also transferred in the name of complainant which merged with aforesaid booking. OP had no licence to set up colony as required under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act which was issued only on 3.12.2007. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum for direction to allot plot of 250 sq. yds. and get it registered. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and complainant has no locus standi to file complaint. It was denied that OP had no licence from concerned department. Complainant failed to make payment of instalments in spite of repeated reminders. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum vide order dated 30.5.2013 dismissed complaint as barred by limitation. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission and that order was upheld by this Commission in revision petition. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties again dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.