ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA, PANCHKULA vs BANWARI LAL

IN this revision challenge is to the order dated 12.8.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 10.9.2004 of a District Forum as barred by time by 267 days.

THERE is also delay of 160 days in filing revision for condoning whereof application has been filed along with petition. Respondent/complainant applied or six Maria plot in Sector 23, Panchkula under GSRQ Category ''B'' after depositing amount of Rs. 50,659, to petitioner No. 1 O.P. No. 1 authority. 80% of the plots were reserved in Category ''A'' while 20% in category ''B''. Category ''B� was meant for retiring persons having five years service to go or who had already retired. It was alleged that the name of respondent was considered in Category ''A'' instead of Category ''B''. In draw of lots in Category ''B'' the petitioner authority considered the names of Shadi Lal, O.P. No. 3 and Kaushalya, O.P. No. 4. At the time of draw it was announced that only two plots were available in Category �B�. Plot No. 150 was alloted to O.P. No. 3 while plot No. 153 to O.P. No. 4. It was also alleged that O.P. No. 3 became successful in draw of lots of eight Maria in Sector 23, Panchkula and was allotted plot No. 47. This draw was held first. O.P. No. 3, thus, surrendered said plot No. 150. Based on these allegations and alleging deficiency in service on part of petitioner authority the respondent filed complaint. In written statement it was admitted that the name of respondent was considered in Category ''A'' instead of Category ''B'' in which he had applied for allotment of plot; that plot No. 150 was allotted to O.P. No. 3 while plot No. 153 to O.P. No. 4 and on becoming successful in another draw of lots which was held prior in time the O.P. No. 3 was allotted another plot bearing No. 47 of eight Maria and so he surrendered the said allotted plot. The District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner authority to allot plot No. 150 to the respondent and pay amount of Rs. 2,000 in lumpsump by way of compensation. It was this order against which appeal was filed by the petitioner authority which was dismissed as barred by limitation by the State Commission in terms of order under challenge.

HAVING heard Mr. Alok Sangwan for petitioner, having considered the grounds for,, condoning delay as set out in two applications �one filed before the State Commission and another before this Commission and the impugned order, we are of the view that delay in question has not been satisfactorily explained at the levels of State Commission as also this Commission. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing appeal and present revision still we do not find any legal infirmity whatsoever in the order passed by District Forum in ordering allotment of plot No. 150 to the respondent particularly taking note of the facts that the name of respondent was not considered in category ''B'', there being two plots in that category and O.P. No. 3 one of the allottees out of two, of plot No. 150 having surrendered allotment of this plot in view of his having been allotted another plot bearing No. 47 of bigger size.

ACCORDINGLY , revision petition is dismissed on both the grounds.