SATISH KUMAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR HOUSEFED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the Satish Kumar against the order dated 4.11.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (For short, 'State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 256 of 2015.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent issued advertisement for allotment of built up residential flats for public at Banur, Distt. Mohali on hire purchase basis. The appellant/complainant applied under the said scheme and paid a sum of Rs. 12.17 lakhs to the respondent as mentioned in the complaint. Flat No. 2321, 6th Floor, Block No. 23, Category I was allotted to the complainant and it was expected that the possession would be handed over by 2012. When the possession was not granted in time, the complainant filed the Consumer Complaint No. 149 of 2015 before the District Forum II, UT Chandigarh (for short, District Forum ). This complaint was filed for compensation for delay in handing over possession. The District Forum however dismissed the complaint vide order dated 7.8.2015. The complainant preferred an appeal bearing no. 250 of 2015 before the State Commission which was also dismissed by the State Commission on 5.10.2015. Instead of filing any Revision Petition against that order dated 5.10.2015 of the State Commission, the complainant filed another complaint bearing no. 236 of 2015 claiming refund of the deposited amount along with interest. The State Commission passed the following order dated 13.10.2015 while disposing of this complaint:

(3.) Then the complainant filed another complaint no. 256 of 2015 for refund due to inordinate price increase, which has been dismissed by the State Commission on 4.11.2015 against which the present appeal has been filed.