ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In these revisions, challange is to the common order dated 21.9.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh allowing appeal Nos. 1607/02 and 1608/02 against a common order dated 17.6.2002 of a District Forum in Complaint case Nos. 161/01 and 162/01 dismissing the complaint.
2. In nutshell, facts giving rise to both the revisions are these. Petitioner in RP No. 1042/ 06 had purchased plot No. 447 in Police Line area while petitioner in RP No. 2400/06 purchased booth No. 3, measuring 27 square yards, situated in C.U. II (Part II), Hisar from the respondent/opposite party authority. Petitioner in former revision was offered possession of the said plot on 28.11.1997 while the petitioner in later revision was offered possession of booth on 15.7.1993 by the respondent. Both the petitioners filed complaints seeking certain reliefs on ground of development work at the site having not been completed. Mr. Naresh Goyal, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner by the District Forum. On contest, taking note of the report of Local Commissioner both the complainants were allowed by the District Forum by the order dated 15.12.1999 with direction to the respondent to offer possession afresh after completing the development work and any interest @ 15% p.a. on the deposited amount. Dissatisfied with the said order the respondent filed appeals wherein the rate of interest was reduced from 15% to 12% p.a. by the State Commission by the order dated 20.4.2000. By the letter dated 24.11.2000, possession of the said plot was again offered to the petitioner on RP No. 1042/06 by the respondent. Petitioner in RP No. 2400/06 was offered possession of the booth by the letter dated 8.11.2000. Petitioners again filed aforesaid complaint on ground of development work having not been completed at the site which were allowed by the District Forum by the said common order dated 17.6.2002 which order in appeals filed by the respondent, was set aside by the State Commission by the order under challenge.
3. Having heard Mr. Vivek Goel for petitioners and also having considered the orders passed by Fora below, in our view, the controversy in these revisions revolves around the issue if the development work was not completed on second offer of possession of the plot and booth in question. Copy of the written version filed by the respondent in complaint case No. 161/01 is at pages 22-25. In para No. 6 of the reply of merit of the written version it is alleged that offer of possession of the plot has been made vide letter-No. 15386 dated 24.11.2000. It is denied that possession has been offered without completing the development work. Though the copy of letter No. 15386 dated 24.11.2000 has not been filed but the order of a State Commission notices that the stand taken therein by the respondent is that the development work in the sector has been completed and petitioner was called upon to take possession on any working day between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. either in person or through authorized agent. Petitioner did not respond to this letter of offer of possession nor did he get a Local Commissioner appointed in support of the allegation that development work was not complete at the site. Similar was the position in complaint case No. 162/01. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the conclusion reached by the State Commission that there is no reason to reject the stand taken by the respondent authority that development work at the site had been completed. Revisions are, therefore, dismissed.