ORDER

By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Haryanan Urban Development Authority/Opposite Party in the Complaint, (for short “the HUDA”) questions the correctness and legality of the Order dated 02.12.2001 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”), in First Appeal No. 847 of 2016. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the HUDA against the Order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Case No. 11 of 2014. The District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by the Complainant has directed the HUDA to allot a suitable plot to the Complainant out of the plots mentioned in the Letter bearing Memo No.14762 dated 26.09.14, if vacant, in terms of original letter of allotment. The HUDA was also directed to pay interest as per its policy on each deposit from the date of respective deposits till offer of alternative plot, apart from compensation of mental agony and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was allotted Plot No 3121, Sector 57, Urban Estate, Gurgaon by HUDA Vide Allotment Letter No. 148 dated 28.01.2005. The Complainant was paying the instalments regularly and was waiting for offer of possession, however, upon enquiry, it was revealed that there was no existence of the allotted Plot No. 3121 in the Site Plan of Sector 57, Urban Estate Gurgaon. Since possession could not be handed over to the Complainant by the HUDA, she filed Writ Petition No. 19140 of 2011 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Referring to its earlier Order dated 01.03.2012 passed in the case of Subhash Puri Vs. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble High Court, Vide Order dated 17.04.2012 directed that all the Allottees of Sector 57 who had not been delivered possession shall be considered by HUDA for allotment of alternative plot preferably in the same Sector or in Sector 51, Gurgaon in terms of the policy dated 10.12.2007. According to the Complainant, HUDA had failed to comply with the aforesaid directions and thus, the Complainant preferred Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 2014 before the District Forum seeking delayed compensation and interest.

3. The Complaint was resisted by the HUDA stating that they were ready to conduct draw of lots but in the meanwhile due to stay imposed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2759/2013 titled Mahender Pal Jain Vs. State of Haryana, the draw of lots for allotment of alternative plot could not be conducted. Subsequently, Vide letter No. 7556 dated 04.07.2014, the Complainant was allotted Plot no. 1377, Sector 51, Gurgaon. However, the Plot No. 1377, Sector 51 was not accepted by the Complainant as in another case the Plot No.1376, Sector 51 allotted to one Suprabha Dahiya was not suitable.

4. The District Forum, vide Order dated 09.06.2016, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the HUDA to allot a suitable Plot to the Complainant along with delayed interest from the date of deposit till offer of alternate Plot, along with costs. The operative portion of the Order dated 09.06.2016 is as under:—

“Therefore, keeping in view the stand taken by the OP and keeping in view the principle of parity, we direct the Opposite Party to allot a suitable plot to the Complainant out of the plots mentioned in the letter bearing Memo No. 14762 dated 26.09.2014 (if lying vacant) issued by Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon to Chief Administrator, HUDA Panchkula in terms of original letter of allotment bearing No. 148 dated 28.01.2005. The Complainant is also entitled to interest as per rates of the HUDA policy on each deposit from the date of respective deposits till offer of alternate plot. The Complainant is also held entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as l