Pardeep Sharma Vs. Chief Administrator Haryana Urban Dev. Auth.
|
Head Note
The Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Section 2 (1)
Consumer - Plot Allotment - Money refunded to the appellant for not depositing the enhanced demanded amount - Not brought to the notice of District Forum that on refund of amount appellant not a consumer and award passed directing respondents to hand over the possession of land - Order challenged before State Commission and during the pendency of appeal possession given to the appellant - Order set aside by State Commission and the Revision against the same also dismissed by National Commission - During the pendency of litigation appellant completed construction on the plot - As per direction inquiry held for fixing responsibility as to who was responsible for giving possession of the plot though the order of District Forum was under challenge - Responsibility fixed and direction given to respondents that the action taken against erring officials are to be taken to their logical conclusion - HUDA directed to permit the appellant to retain the plot subject to the condition that the appellant pays the cost of plot at the prevailing HUDA rate i.e. Rs.10,500/- per sq. mtr. - Respondents directed to action taken in the disciplinary proceedings and shall file compliance report before the Court within nine months.
Topic(s)-Consumer - After refund complainant not consumer