JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

This Revision Petition has been filed by Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority under Section 58(2) against the impugned Order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh in F.A. No. 255 of 2018, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2.      The factual background in brief is that Anita Sharma, the complainant, was allotted Flat No. 12A in Category-II under a partially self-financed Scheme within a Housing Colony at Kasumpti, Shimla, H.P.  The specified cost of the Flat was Rs. 35 Lacs. It is asserted that the complainant paid an earnest amount of Rs. 3,55,000/-. The complainant's argument is that she applied for a Flat with a plinth area of 96.11 m³, but the Petitioner assigned a Flat with a plinth area of 94.64 m³.  Additionally, the complainant requested the Petitioner to exchange the Flat, which was refused. Consequently, the Petitioner cancelled the Flat, forfeiting Rs. 71,000/-, and only refunded Rs. 2,84,000/- to the complainant. The complainant contends that this deduction constitutes a deficiency in service, prompting her to file a complaint before the District Forum, Solan.Top of Form

3.      The District Forum vide its Order dated 23.12.2017 partly allowed the complaint. The relevant extracts of the Order of the District Forum are set out as below –

“11. Thus, from the contents of the application, it is clear that opposite party failed to allot flat in category-II, tentative unit area of which was 96.11(2BHK) against tentative cost was 35.52 lacs. Instead, opposite party had allotted a flat in category II, in Block A of which tentative area was 94.64 square meters against tentative cost of ₹35.00 lacs. Since opposite party had failed to allot a flat which was applied for by the complainant i.e. Flat in category-II, tentative unit area of which was 96.11 square meters against tentative cost of ₹35.52 lacs, therefore, opposite party was not justified in deducting 20% amount under clause-12(i) of the brochure. It is not the case of opposite party that complainant was allotted flat in category-II having plinth area of 96.11 square meters. The complainant had not surrendered the flat which was applied for by her, but surrendered the flat which was wrongly allotted to her. Therefore, we are of the opinion that opposite party was not justified in retaining ₹71000/-. Further, we are of the opinion that clause 12(i) of the brochure, on the basis of which ~71000/- were deducted by opposite party, is not applicable to the complainant, since under this clause, there was no condition to deduct 20% of the earnest money.
 

12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that opposite party wrongly and illegally deducted ₹71000/-. Therefore, it is established on record that opposite party provided deficient services to the complainant. Hence, the complaint deserves to be partly allowed.

13. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund ₹71000/-'" to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Opposite party is also directed to pay ₹15,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides ₹3,000/- towards litigation charges. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per Rules and the file after due completion be consigned to the record-room.”

4.      Aggrieved by the Order of the District