IMPORTANT POINT
Ratio of judgment cannot be mechanically applied.

Anupam Dasgupta, Member—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 1146 of 2002. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short, ‘the HUDA’) against the order dated 25.02.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case no.611 of 2001 filed by the petitioner herein.

2 (i) The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum. He participated in an auction held by the respondent and, being the highest bidder for the sum of Rs.3,30,500/-, was allotted a commercial plot of land (DSS 69) measuring 78.78 sq. mtr in the Old Court Area, Hisar by allotment letter dated 31.07.1990. He paid all the instalments for the price of the plot of land by 02.01.1996. However, the respondent failed to deliver/offer possession of the plot after completing the development works in the area in accordance with clause 6 of the allotment letter. The petitioner was thus constrained to file a consumer complaint (no. 930 of 1996) against the respondent before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent for failing to offer possession of the plot of land despite repeated requests over nearly six years since the issue of the letter of allotment.

(ii) By its order dated 04.08.1998, the District Forum allowed the complaint holding that the complainant/petitioner had purchased the plot of land in question to earn his livelihood and the respondent could not keep the development works pending at its sweet will. The District Forum, therefore, awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the entire auction price of the plot from the dates of deposit of the amounts till the date of offer of possession of the plot.

(iii) The respondent HUDA went up in appeal before the State Commission which was disposed of by the State Commission by its order dated 25.11.1998 upholding the substantive part of the order dated 04.08.1998 of the District Forum but reducing the rate of interest to 15% per annum on the amounts deposited after expiry of two years from the date of the initial deposit. The respondent HUDA deposited Rs.1,94,233/- on 30.03.2006 in compliance of the aforesaid order of the State Commission and the amount was then disbursed to the petitioner/complainant.

(iv) However, on 26.07.2001, the respondent issued a notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the plot of land should not be resumed because the petitioner had failed to raise construction on it within the stipulated time. This forced the petitioner to file a second complaint before the District Forum seeking quashing of the show cause notice dated 26.07.2001. By its order dated 25.02.2002, the District Forum allowed the complaint, quashed the show cause notice dated 26.07.2001 and also awarded interest @ 15% per annum from 07.10.1997 on the entire deposited amount till the date of fresh offer of physical possession of the plot by the respondent after carrying out the requisite development works in the area. In addition, the District Forum awarded to the petitioner Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and cost of Rs.1100/-. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum also observed, on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner that there were bushes and scrub trees in and around the plots; the ground had not been levelled and there was no metalled or unmetalled road leading to the plot at that point of time.

(iv) The respondent HUDA preferred an appeal to the State Commission against this order dated 25.02.2002 of the District Forum. It is this appeal that was allowed by the State Commission by its impugned order dated 26.11.2010, relying solely on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Admin