HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Kamlesh Goel

AGGRIEVED by the order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 357/2009, HUDA has approached this with the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner/HUDA against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No. 337 of 2007, by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and gave the following directions to the opposite party/petitioner/HUDA: "In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is observed that the respondents shall allot an alternative plot to the complainant of the same size without charging any additional amount as per rules and regulations in the same sector. As the respondents have done nothing needful in the matter, there is deficiency in services on the part of the respondents as such and the complainant is also entitled for interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum on the deposited amount from filing of the present complaint i.e. 18.11.2005 till the actual delivery of the possession in favour of the complainant. The complaint is allowed accordingly. "

BEFORE the State Commission, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner/appellant/HUDA that the non-delivery of the allotted plot to the respondent/complainant was not on account of any fault of the HUDA as the land, on which the allotted plot existed, came under litigation, which is still continuing. The State Commission repelled the said plea, upheld the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant/HUDA by observing as under: "Since OPs admitted that the plot earlier allotted was encroached upon and area was not developed, therefore, no default could be attributed to the complainant Consequently, District forum rightly directed the OPs to allot an alternative plot which learned Counsel states plot had already been allotted. In view of admission by OPs the deficiency stood proved against the OPs. Consequently, District Forum rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. "

We have heard Mr. Badhran, learned Counsel for the petitioner/HUDA. At the outset, we may notice that there is a delay of 66 days in filing the petition and application for condonation of delay has been filed but, in our view, the petitioner/HUDA has failed to make out a case for condonation of delay on the grounds set out in the application and, therefore, the application is declined.

ON merits, Mr. Badhran submits that once the plot in question had come under litigation, it was open for the respondent/complainant to have sought refund of the deposited amount which would have been paid to him immediately on his request and he cannot seek the allotment of alternative plot nor could the Fora below grant the said relief. We see no merit in this contention because as per the HUDA ''s own policy if an allotted plot comes into litigation, the petitioner/HUDA is duty-bound to allot a plot in the same sector or in adjoining sector.

WE , therefore, see no merits in the present petition, which is dismissed on both the counts of limitation as well as on merits. Revision Petition dismissed.