BRIJ MOHAN VASHISHT Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this revision, challenge by the complainant is to the order dated 3. 7. 2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 20. 3. 2007 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed.

(2.) DISPUTE between the parties in present revision mainly centres around the charging of interest of Rs. 85,000 by the respondent/opposite party-Authority from the petitioners on ground of non-providing of amenities to the plot allotted to them. Referring to Clause Nos. 7 and 9 of the Prospectus, Local Commissioner's report dated 18. 8. 2005 in the complaint in Azad Singh v. HUDA and affidavit of Azad Singh filed by way of evidence, the submission advanced by Shri Amit Chadha for the petitioners is that the approach road to the petitioner's plot, water supply, sewerage and electricity in the area were not available at the time the petitioners were given possession of the plot and they thus should not have been made to pay the interest. Said Local Commissioner's report also finds mention in the order of State Commission. Considering this report, the State Commission has returned the finding of sewerage, water, electricity facilities and Kaccha road being available at the site. Also taking note of the ratio in the decision in Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Ors. Etc. v. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. Etc. , II (2006) SLT 592=jt 2006 (3) SC 1, the State Commission has affirmed the majority judgment of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. R. P. dismissed.