ORDER
D.P Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum in a complaint
filed by the respondent-complainant. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the
ground that it would be better for the complainants to file civil suit. However, his appeal
was allowed by the State Commission. It is the petitioner-opposite party who is now
aggrieved and has sought to challenge the order of the State Commission.
2. Complainant was allotted a plot of land on 10.7.1992 by the petitioner
with certain conditions regarding user thereof. Towards price of the plot complainant
paid Rs. 40,000/- on 18.8.1992 and Rs. 60,000/- on 22.8.1992. Then the complainant
was told that price of the plot had been increased and he was asked to make further
payment which he did. Total payment made by him was thus Rs. 1,25,020/-. He got
formal possession of the plot on 16.4.1993. In spite of his repeated requests documents
of title were not executed.
3. Alleging deficiency in service complainant filed his complainant before the
District Forum. Now the stand of the petitioner was that allotment of plot of land in
favour of complainant was illegal and that the plot could not have been allotted to the
complainant. No reasons were given as to why it could be said that the allotment of the
plot was illegal. It would, therefore, appear that complainant could not construct on the
plot of land. As a matter of fact, State Commission found that the stand of the petitioner
was untenable. State Commission, therefore, was of the view that there was no reason or
ground existing for the petitioner not to execute sale deed and get it registered. State
Commission, therefore, held that complainant was entitled to compensation for non-registration
of the documents of title while the allotment was made on 10.4.1992. State
Commission, therefore, directed that the amount of Rs. 1,25,020/- deposited by the
complainant towards price of the plot shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the
date when various amounts deposited by the complainant towards purchase price of the
plot. State Commission also gave direction for execution of the sale deed. State
Commission granted Rs. 2000/- as compensation to the complainant and also Rs. 2000/-
as costs.
4. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Complainant
had been unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner. We do not find it is a fit case for us
to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 1000/-.