ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Revision Petition arises from the order of the State Commission dismissing
the appeal filed by the Petitioner, HUDA, which had been filed by them against the order
of District Forum allowing the complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Plot No. 66 in Sector 21 at Bhiwani was
allotted to one, Smt. Kamal Verma, who after paying full price was given possession and
sale deed was also executed. After sometime, the plot was sold by her to the
Complainant, K.K. Aggarwal for which a registered sale deed was executed. When the
purchaser moved the Petitioner to change the name in the record, it was not done on the
grounds that five instalments were due from the original purchaser. The District Forum summoned the record of HUD, of this case and were than told that five instalments stood
paid. it is these circumstances the District Forum directed the Petitioner to register
the transfer in favour of the Complaint/Respondent and awarded compensation of
Rs. 3,000/-. The appeal filed by the Petitioner before the State Commissioner was
dismissed in limini.
3. It was argued before us that the State Commissioner order is wrong in as much as
the complaint is not a consumer vis a vis the Petitioner. it is amazing how a public
authority like HUDA can take such a stand. Complaint purchased the plot from the
original allottee, got it registered, the services being rendered by the Petitioner is of
registering the transfer. By not registering the transfer, based legitimate and registered sale deed without any proper
reason is deficiency in service. It is on this ground that both the lower for a have passed
the order. We see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State
Commission. This Petition is dismissed with additional cost of Rs. 1,000/-.