1.       This Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24.11.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.2200/2005.

2.       Case of the Petitioner/Complainant was that she was allotted Plot No.2136 in Sector-18, HUDA Panipat, vide allotment letter dated 29.05.2002. Respondent/Opposite Party sent letter dated 17.10.2002 to the Petitioner demanding a sum of Rs.3,08,336.16 as enhanced price of the plot. The Petitioner asked for the details of enhanced price but in vain. The Petitioner received a letter dated 24.12.2002 whereby she was asked to take possession of the Plot. She, however, did not take the possession, as the plot in question was not properly carved out nor was it connected with a metalled road. Moreover, there were no provision for water supply, electricity and sewerage. The Petitioner also asked the Respondent/HUDA to provide complete statement of accounts, but she was not provided the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner/Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer: -

“(a)   That the respondents be directed to first fully develop the sector by attaching the plot No.2136, Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat with proper roads, amenities of sewerage, water and electricity and to provide all the basic amenities in the entire sector and in the event of failure of the respondents to provide all these basic amenities, the respondents be ordered to pay the compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000 on account of escalation in the price of construction and not to charge any interest on the balance payments till further development of the sector and the plot in question and thereafter only, it be held that the possession of the plot is liable to be delivered to the petitioner.

(b)     That the respondents be ordered to render true and correct accounts after accounting for all the area including commercial area and its market value of the sector and then to calculate the enhancement payable by the petitioner/complainant.

(c)      That the respondents be ordered to accept actual payments after settlement of accounts without charging any interest.

(d)     that in the meantime, the respondents be ordered not to cancel the allotment of the plot.

(e)      That any other relief to which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the interest of equity and natural justice in the circumstances of the instant case be also given to the petitioner.  

3.       Complaint was resisted by the Respondent/Opposite Party on the ground that the initial price of the plot was tentative, which was mentioned in condition No.9 of the allotment letter. 10% enhancement in the price of the Plot was therefore justified. It was further stated that the details of enhancement were sent to the Complainant on the reverse side of the enhancement letter dated 17.10.2002. The Petitioner/Complainant was offered possession of the Plot, but she herself did not accept the same. Opposite Party prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

4.       After hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and going through the record, District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondent as follows: -

“For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the respondent