IMPORTANT POINT
Appropriate case where Review Application has to be allowed as the Appellant Complainant has made out a case for allotment of an alternative plot.

ORDER

The Revision Petition No. 878 of 2011, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), was preferred by the Petitioner, against the Impugned Order dated 08.12.2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 490/2005 whereby the State Commission had allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, the HUDA) while setting aside the Order dated 16.02.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short “the District Forum”).

2. Succinctly put, the material facts are that on 18.11.1998 the Respondents/HUDA had allotted a residential unit being Plot No. 406 in Sector 2, Faridabad, admeasuring 14 Marlas to the Petitioner. In view of the contractual terms of the allotment letter, the possession of the Plot was supposed to be handed over within three years from the date of Allotment. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents failed to handover the possession and instead started demanding huge enhancements towards the price of the Plot. Feeling aggrieved, on 02.05.2002 Petitioner sought refund of the entire deposited amount with the Respondents along with interest. Pertinently, the Respondents refunded a sum of ¹ 5,22,258/- after deducting 10% being ¹ 1,04,414.90 in view of Memo No. A-11-P-95/33924-51 dated 14.12.1995 issued by Respondents, wherein as per Clause (a) the surrender of the residential plots was allowed to be made by the concerned Estate Officer after forfeiting an amount of 10% of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable. The Petitioner filed Complaint before the District Forum being Consumer Complaint No. 270 of 2003 on the ground that the Petitioner was compelled to surrender her allotment in view of the arbitrary enhanced demands being made by the Respondents towards the increased sale price of the Plot and despite that possession could not be handed over to the Petitioner and prayed for a possession of the similarly placed Plot along with compensation. The District Forum, vide Order dated 16.02.2005, allowed the Complaint preferred by the Petitioner/Complainant and directed the Respondents to allot Plot No. 8 in Sector-46, Faridabad in lieu of the originally allotted Plot, after charging the difference in the price, if any, and also directed to pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount which remained deposited with the Respondents w.e.f. its deposit till its realization and litigation expenses.

3. The Respondent HUDA challenged the Order passed by the District Forum before the State Commission vide First Appeal No. 490 of 2005. The State Commission vide order dated 08.12.2010 set aside the Order passed by the District Forum by placing reliance on the Memo No. A-11-P-95/33924-51 dated 14.12.1995 issued by Respondents holding that the deduction of 10% cannot be disputed in the view of the letter circulated by HUDA(supra).

4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/Complainant filed Revision Petition No. 878 of 2011 before this Commission assailing Order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the State Commission. The Commission vide order dated 04.08.2011, dismissed the Revision Petition as withdrawn by the Petitioner.

5. The Petitioner has now filed the Review Application No. 19 of 2021 seeking review of the Order dated 04.08.2011 on the grounds that; (i) the Petitioner has been depositing the remaining amount from time to time as per the schedule of payments as and when demanded but no possession has been offered or given to the Petitioner; (ii) that the Respondents have been raising demands unreasonably on account of increased price of the Plot without disclosing the source and reason of such enhancement; (iii) that the Respondents failed to refund the entire amount as paid by the Petitioner along with interest and that there was no fault or default on the part of the Petitioner to merit any deductions