ISHWAR SINGH Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 17.02.2014, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.873 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 22.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 386 of 2011. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint, filed by the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA") and its officials, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, in not delivering the possession of the plot, bearing No.204-P, Sector-23, Bhiwani, allotted to him on 03.07.1990, vide allotment letter, bearing No. 1943, the District Forum had directed HUDA to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, physical harassment And financial loss caused to him, with a further direction to allow raising of construction, as per the site plan submitted by him for sanction, and also pay a sum of Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum had also directed that if HUDA fails to comply with the said directions, the Petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. on the awarded amount, from the date of default till realization.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission, praying for enhancement of compensation to Rs.20,00,000/-. However, as aforesaid, the Appeal has been dismissed.

(3.) At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that HUDA chose not to challenge the order passed by the District Forum and, thus, insofar as the finding of deficiency in service on its part in not delivering the physical possession of the plot in question is concerned, the same has attained finality. Nevertheless, while expressing its helplessness in being unable to reverse the aforesaid finding by the District Forum as HUDA had not challenged the said order, the State Commission still proceeded to observe that the delay in delivery of possession was attributable to the Petitioner, and, hence, HUDA could not be blamed for the same.