HUDA & ANR Vs. PARKASHO & 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA") is to the order dated 27.02012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.1452 of 2008. By the impugned order, while upholding the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short "the District Forum"), in its order dated 22.05.2008, in Consumer Complaint No.314 of 2007, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in not allotting 10 Marla plot to the Complainants under the Oustees quota, on the ground that in the allotment Form filled up by them against the category column, they had stated "farmers" instead of "Oustees Quota", the State Commission has modified the said order to the extent that it has fixed the time period of three months from the date of its order for HUDA to allot the plot under the Oustees quota, as per the "Oustees policy".

(2.) As noted above, in the first instance, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondents, alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA on the afore-noted allegation, the District Forum had allowed the Complaint with the direction to HUDA to refund to the Complainants the earnest money deposited by them, with interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. the date of deposit till actual realization, if not already refunded, with a direction that the claim of the Complainants shall be considered against the 'Oustees quota', whenever further plots are carved out in any Sector in Panchkula as per Oustees policy and as per their entitlements.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.