Case nº First Appeal No. 298 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 17/08/2010 in Complaint No. 64/2001 of the State Commission Haryana) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 09, 2016 (case 1. Anita Jain and Anr. 2. Mrs.Madhu Jain Vs HUDA and Ors.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Shri Attin Shankar Rastogi, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Vishal Mahajan, Advocate |
| President | Mr. K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | November 09, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 17.8.2010 passed by State Commission in Complaint No. 64 of 2001- Anita Jain & Anr. Vs. HUDA & Ors.; by which complaint was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant participated in auction conducted by opposite party/ respondent and purchased plot No. 4253-P in Sector-23 A, Gurgaon, measuring 341 sq. mtrs., vide allotment letter dated 7.9.1990. However, at the time of demarcation of plot, it was noticed that area of plot was reduced to 313.5 sq. mtrs. Complainant time and again asked opposite party to give possession of plot having same size which was originally allotted to him and by many letters shown his willingness to make payment of rest of the amount. It was further pleaded that by letter dated 26.7.2000, complainant was ready to make balance payment of Rs. 2,91,550/- including interest for the plot as per statement of account submitted by complainant but possession of plot was not given. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint for direction to opposite party to hand over possession of alleged plot at same cost without any interest or penalty and order that complainants are not liable to pay any interest or penalty over and above the cost of plot and also claimed compensation. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within the purview of ''consumer'' and complaint is also barred by limitation. Many averments made in the complaint were denied though auction and allotment of plot was admitted. In para 24 of written statement, it was further pleaded that plot in question has already been allotted to Mr. S.B. Aggarwal vide Memo dated 9.4.2001 due to office mistake but denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed complaint on the ground that as plot was purchased in open auction, it cannot be termed as consumer dispute and complainant was given liberty to approach Civil Court against which this appeal has been filed.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
It is not disputed that during the pendency of appeal, complainant was given possession of another plot measuring 313 sq. mtrs. And conveyance deed has also been executed on depositing Rs. 19,76,306/- under protest.
Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that opposite party was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial