LexPARDEEP SHARMA versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H (2016] I S.C.R. 586 PARDEEP SHARMA v. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 52-53 of2016) JANUARY 07, 2016 [T.S. THAKUR, CJI. AND R. BANUMATHI, J.) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Allotment of plot - Non- delivery of possession of plot to appellant on account of failure to deposit the balance amount - Complaint by appellant before the District Forum seeking possession of plot from respondent- Development Authority - During pendency, complainant accepted the refund of the amount deposited by him towards price of the plot - However, said fact not brought to the notice of District Forum - Direction by District Forum to respondent to re-allot the same plot to complainant on the same price - Appeal by respondent - During pendency of the appeal, execution petition by complainant allowed and in compliance thereof physical possession of the plot handed over to the complainant - State Commission allowed the appeal holding that the complainant cannot claim the possession of the plot allotted to him since it had accepted the refund amount of 10% after voluntarily surrendering the plot and as such the complainant was no longer a consumer - Said order upheld by National Commission - Review application also dismissed - On appeal, held: Since the appellant had deposited the then cost of the plot way back in 2009 and other facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, issuance of direction to respondents to permit the appellant to retain the plot subject to the condition that the appellant would pay the cost of plot at Rs.10,5001- per sq. mtr. after adjusting the amount already deposited by him - During the pendency of the matter before the State Commission, Estate Officer in pursuance of the order passed in Execution Petitiori and by a letter regularized the allotment of the plot and handed over the possession to the appellant - Issuance of direction to respondent-Authority to proceed against the delinquent officials/officers responsible for the lapses in accordance with law. 586 PARDEEP SHARMA v. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA 587 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 52-53 A of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2011 and 29.09.2011 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 671 of201 land Review Application No. 142/ 2011 in Revision Petition No. 671 of201 I respectively. B S. R. Singh, Vibhut Sushant Gupta, Dr. Kailash Chand, for the Appellant. Samar Vijay Singh, Dr. Monika Gusain, Manoj Sheoran, P. D. Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J, I. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are filed assailing the orders dated 19.07.2011 and 29.09.2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National Commission') dismissing the Revision Petition No.671/2011 and also the Review Application No.142/2011,.thereby confirming the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short 'State Commission') whereby it was observed that the appellant- complainant having accepted the refund amount of 10% and was no longer a consumer and has no locus standi to seek possession of the plot allotted to him. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as follows:- The appellant/complainant was allotted a plot bearing No. I 048 in Sector 64, Faridabad measuring 250 sq. yds. vide Memo No. 399 dated 01.01.2001 at the rate of Rs.1,865/- per sq. yd. The appellant along with the application form had deposited 10% as earnest money and 15% of the sale consideration was deposited on 22.01.2001. Balance amount of75% of the total cost was to be deposited by the appellant in six yearly equal instalments with 15% interest per annum to Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA'). HUDA issued the demand notice to the appellant calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.59, 782.50 vide Memo No.38698 dated 04.10.2002 on account of enhancement of the cost of the plot, which as per the terms of allotment they have right to do so. The appellant has failed to deposit the said amount and hence the possession of the plot was not delivered to him. c D E F G H 588 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. Alleging that there was deficiency on the part of HUDA for not delivering th,e possession,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.