AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delay condoned.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of the revision filed by it against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ''the State Commission'') which upheld the direction given by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar (for short, ''the District Forum'') for refund of Rs. 55,379 along with compensation of Rs. 1,13,190 in lieu of escalation in the cost of construction and further compensation of Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and harassment. On the basis of bid given by him in the auction conducted by the Petitioner in 1987, plot No. MCB-65 measuring 75.62 sq. yards was allotted to Shri Ram Phal Aggarwal. The cost of the plot was Rs. 3,27,500, 10% of which had been paid by the allottee. After about one year, Shri Ram Phal Aggarwal sold the plot to the Respondent and allotment letter dated 28.12.1988 was issued in her favour.
For the next 11 years, concerned officers of the Petitioner did not carry out the necessary development at the site and did not offer possession of the plot. Therefore, the Respondent filed complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
After considering the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by them, the District Forum allowed the complaint and issued directions to which reference has been made hereinabove. The State Commission agreed with the District Forum that the concerned authorities have failed to carry out the development and there was deficiency in service. Along with revision filed by it against the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner also filed an application for condonation of 113 days'' delay. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ''the National Commission'') dismissed the application for condonation of delay. On merits also, the National Commission agreed with the State Commission that the District Forum had rightly come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
In our view, the orders passed by the three consumer Fora do not suffer from any legal error which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The SLP is accordingly dismissed.