District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.529/2021.
Date of Institution: 06.10.2021.
Date of Order: 21.03.2023.
Smt. Sudarshana Batra W/o Devinder Batra R/o H. No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad (Haryana).
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran, (Earlier known as – Haryana Urban Development Authority), through its Estate Officer, Sector-12, Faridabad (Haryana)
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. C.M.Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Atam Parkash, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that a residential plot No. 265-P, Sector-31, Faridabad was initially allotted jointly on free hold basis to Smt. Tara Dingra wife of Shri P.R. Dingra and Kumari Daman Daughter of Shri P.R. Dhingra vide allotment letter bearing Memo NO. A/31/99-115 dated 25.01.1999 issued by the opposite party. Subsequently, as the HUDA (now HSVP) failed to develop the area of the said allotted plot for a long time, on 11.04.2005 the said allottees of plot NO. 265, Sector-31, Faridabad filed a consumer complaint NO. 273 of 2005 before the Hon’ble District Forum, Faridabad. Vide its order dated 19.07.2005, the Hon’ble District Forum allowed the said consumer complaint and directed the opposite party/HUDA to allot a residential plot NO. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad on similar prices and to deliver physical possession of the same to the allottee. The Hon’ble district Forum had also allowed interest on the deposited amount, compensation for mental harassment and some other reliefs in favour of the allottee and against the opposite party. The complainant was relying upon a communication dated 19.01.2005 bearing memo NO. 467-68 issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to all the Administrators and Estate Officer of HUDA regarding their decision for implementation of orders of various courts/Forums. It had been stated in the said letter dated 19.01.2005 of the HUDA that “with the approval of the Government it had been decided that in such cases, the concerned Administrators shall take decision regarding implementation of the judgement/decision of various courts. While doing so the interest of HUDA must be kept in mind”. The opposite party implemented the said order dated 19.07.2005 of the Hon’ble District Commission passed in Consumer complaint No. 273 of 2005 and allotted the alternative plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad measuring 300 sq. mtr. In lieu of earlier allotted plot No. 265, Sector-31, Faridabad in favour of the allottee. The allottee also deposited an amount of Rs.2,71,689/- immediately after receipt of intimation from the opposite party against the said plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad. Subsequently, on the transfer application of the allottee, the said plot was transferred by the opposite party to Daman Nagpal W/o Radhe Nagpal. The opposite party delivered physical possession of the said plot NO. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad on 31.10.2007 to the said Daman Nagpal. On 22.11.2007, the said allottee – Daman Nagpal submitted a transfer permission application before the HUDA for transfer of the said residential plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad in the name of the complainant herein i.e. Smt. Sudarshana Batra. The Competent Authoirty of HUDA vide their permission letter dated 04.12.2007, allowed the transfer of the said plot No.. 191, Sectora-31, Faridabad in the name of the complainant Smt. Sudarshana Batra.
On 12.2.2008, the opposite party issued the final transfer letter bearing memo No. 7000 with regard to re-allotment of plot No. 193, admeasuring 358 sq. yards, Sector-31, Faridabad, Haryana in favour of the complainant herein. The transfer letter/re-allotment letter dated 12.02.2008 was issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant- Smt. Sudarshana Batra unconditionally as was clear from the contents of the said letter dated 12.02.2008. After the said transfer of the allotment of the said plot No.193, Sector – 31, Faridabad, the complainant had raised the construction therat, on instructions from the competent officials of the HUDA/opposite party. The construction on the said plot had been done by the complainant a sper standard zoning plan and even got the electricity connection for the said house from the Competent Authority in the year 2011. The said house was assessable for property tax which was also being paid by the complainant to the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad since the year 2011. The complainant had come to know recently that the opposite party had issued a policy dated 05.03.2019 for regularizing the construction/for issuing of occupation certificate in respect of the constructed houses vide Memo No. A-6-UB-2019/42373-74 dated 05.03.2019. It had come to the knowledge of the complainant that in order to reduce the litigation against HUDA, the Competent Authority of the opposite party had directed the concerned Administrators/Estate Officers of the HSVP to issue completion certificate in favour of the respective allottees whose construction of the houses had been done. The case of the complainant was also covered by the said policy directions dated 05.03.2019 of the opposite party, as the construction had been raised by the complainant as per the standard zoning plan was also having sufficient proofs for the completion of construction of the house and availing of facilities such as electricity supply by the DHBVNL and deposit of property/house tax since 2011 to the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. The applicant was willing and ready to deposit the requisite fee for the issuance of the occupancy certificate and to bear the cost of stamp duty for the execution of conveyance deed in her favour, as per the order/direction issued by the Hon’ble District Commission. On 16.2.2019, the complainant submitted a representation before the Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula for an amicable settlement of the issue in respect of the constructed residential plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad and to regularize the construction in terms of policy instructions issued vide memo No. A-6-UB-2019/42373-74 dated 05.03.2019 of the opposite party. Till date the opposite party officials had not taken any decision on the said representation dated 16.09.2019 of the complainant. The officials of the opposite party were simply sitting idle on the various requests, reminders and representations submitted by the complainant for the issuance of the conveyance deed of the subject plot and the constructed house No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad in favour of the complainant, which amount to gross negligence and deficiency in service. On 09.12.2020 the opposite party vide their memo NO. 8698 issued a show cause notice under section 7 (3) of HUDA Act – 1977 with regard to the said plot No. 193, Seactor-31, Faridabad regarding their allegations of unauthorized construction in backyard. On 29.12.2020, the complainant sent her response to the said show cause notice dated 09.12.2020 of the opposite party regarding plot No.193, Sector-31, Faridabad. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) execute the conveyance deed/title deed of the plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad and the constructed house on the same, in favour of the complainant;
b) quash the show cause notice dated 09.12.2020 under section 17(3) of HUDA Act issued by the opposite party;
c) restrain the opposite party, its agents, servants, employees, attorneys or/and anyone else claiming under it from taking any coercive action or creating any third party right in the said plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad, during the pendency of the present consumer case;
d) pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the entire deposited amount of the complainant towards the said property, calculated from the date of respective date of deposit till the date of actual payment of the total uptill date calculated amount to the complainant, due to delay in execution of the conveyance deed of the plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad and the constructed house
e) pay compensation to the complainant for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of escalation in the cost of construction, on account of the increased cost of registration of conveyance deed of the subject plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad and punitive damages, etc. to the complainant;
f) pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
g) pay Rs. 10,00,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the matter had already been decided finally by the State Commission on dated 17.02.2011 and revision petition filed by the complainant on dated 15.06.2011 had been finally decided on 30.06.2021 and the same had been rejected against the complainant & in favour of the opposite party, as such, this complaint was not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum. It was correct that on a complaint of the complainant, the Hon’ble District Consumer Forum, Faridabad had announced an award dated 19.07.2005 in favour of the complainant and in compliance of this award an alaternate plot NO. 193, Sectorr-31 was allotted to the complainant. But this order was challenged by the opposite party i.e. HSVP, before the Hon’ble Commission, Panchkula. The appeal of the opposite party was allowed by the Hon’ble State Commission and the order of the Hon’ble District Forum dated 19.07.2005 was set aside and the complaint of the complainant was dismissed on 17.02.2011. In between the plot in question was allotted to the complainant as stay was not granted by the Hon’ble state Commission against the orders of the Hon’ble Consumer Forum. Further a revision petition was made by the complainant before the National Commission and the same was withdrawn by the complainant on 23.05.2013. Another revision petition was filed by the complainant on dated 15.06.2021 before the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh. This revision petition of the complainant had also been dismissed by the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department , Chandigarh on dated 30.06.2021. Now after dismissal of revision of the complainant finally this office had withdrawn the possession of the plot No. 193,Sector-31, Faridabad form the complainant vide this office letter NO. 13397/13400 dated 06.12.2021. The possession of the plot was given in 2005 in compliance of the orders of Hon’ble District Consumer Forum, Faridabad. It was further submitted that the alternative plot No. 193, Sector-31 was allotted to the complainant on the judgement of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad and sub sequentially order of the consumer Forum was challenged before the Hon’ble State Commission and by filing an appeal and appeal of the opposite party was allowed. As such the order of the District Consumer Forum had become ineffective. The Hon’ble State Commission as well as Hon’ble Principal Secretary had dismissed of the complaint of the complainant and the allotment/possession of plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad had been cancelled. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran with the prayer to: a) execute the conveyance deed/title deed of the plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad and the constructed house on the same, in favour of the complainant; b) quash the show cause notice dated 09.12.2020 under section 17(3) of HUDA Act issued by the opposite party; c) restrain the opposite party, its agents, servants, employees, attorneys or/and anyone else claiming under it from taking any coercive action or creating any third party right in the said plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad, during the pendency of the present consumer case; d)pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the entire deposited amount of the complainant towards the said property, calculated from the date of respective date of deposit till the date of actual payment of the total uptill date calculated amount to the complainant, due to delay in execution of the conveyance deed of the plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad and the constructed house. e) pay compensation to the complainant for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of escalation in the cost of construction, on account of the increased cost of registration of conveyance deed of the subject plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad and punitive damages, etc. to the complainant;
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Smt. Sudarshana Batra, Ex.C-1 - letter dated 10.10.2007 regarding allotment of an alternate lot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.C-2 - Transfer Permission, Ex.C-3 – Possession certificate,, Ex.C-4 – receipt, Ex.C-5 – show cause notice, Ex.C-6 – reply to show cause notice,, Ex.C-7 – letter dated 10.09.2021 written by the complainant to HUDA, Ex.C-7 – Demand Note Details,, Ex.C-8 – Remittance Advice, Ex.C-9 – Online payment receipt,, Ex.C-10 – Demand Note Details, Ex.C-11 – Remittance Advice,Ex.C-12 - NEFT/RTGS Challan,, Ex.C-13 – print receipt, Ex.C-14(colly) – order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, Ex.C-15 – order dated 9th June 2009, Ex.C-16(colly) – order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, Ex.C-17- Offer of possession of plot NO. 265, Sector-21 vide Memo No. 542 dated 5.5.2020, Ex.C-18 - Final transfer of plot /House No. 265 Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.C-19 - Memo No. 38/28-30 dated 10.10.2007 regarding allotment of an alternate plot no. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad is allotted in lieu of plot No.265, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.C-20 -Memo No. 38126-27 regarding re-allotment of plot No. 0265 Sector31, Ex.C-21 letter written by the complainant to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Ex.C-22-Application for transfer permission regarding the plot NO. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.C-23 -Application to deposit the documents regarding plot No. 265, Sector-11,Faridabad, Ex.C-24 & 25-Memo No. 1051& Memo No. 1249, Ex.C-26 -Memo Dated 26.4.2000 regarding offer of possession of plots in additional pocket in Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.C-27 -letter regarding allotment of an alternative plot No. 265, Secatoar-31, in lieu of plot No. 395, Sector-48, Faridabad,Ex.C-28 & 29- letter regarding information under RTI Act 2005, Ex.C-30- letter regarding settlement/possession of plot NO. 193 in lieu of plot No. 265 in Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.C-31 -letter dated 24.6.2011 regarding issue of No Dues Certificate of H.No. 193 Sector-31, Faridabad,Ex.C-32 - reply to show cause notice, Ex.C-33 -order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary To Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning,, Ex.C-34 -Memo regarding revision petition No. 32 of 2021 titled as Sudarshan Batra Vs. HSVP (Plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad), Ex.C-35 - Notice for hearing under section 17(2) of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 in respect of residential -14 Marla, Plot NO. 193, Sector-31, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Ex.C-36, memo No. 7693 dated 12.12.2013 regarding settlement/possession of plot NO. 193 in lieu of plot NO. 265, Sector-31, Faridabad. Ex.C-37 -letter No. 2895 regarding lodging of FIR, Ex.C-38 - Memo dated 6.9.2022 regarding rejection of building plan which was wrongly approved from BPMS system in respect of plot NO. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad,, Ex.C-39- Memo No. 13397-13400 regarding Revision petition under section 30(2) of HSVP Act, 1977 in respect of plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad,, Ex.C-40 - possession certificate, Ex.C-41 - Final transfer letter, Ex.C-42 -possession certificate, Ex.C-43 -Memo dated 10.10.2007 regarding allotment of an alternate plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad is allotted in lieu of plot No. 265, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.C-44, 44A to 50 -Allottee Account statements, Ex.C-51 – Plot Status Enquiry, Ex.C-51A -Online payment receipt, Ex.C-52 - plot status enquiry,, Ex.C-53 - Online payment receipt, Ex.C-54 & C-55 -Remittance advices, Ex.C-56 Building Plan Approval letter. Ex.C-57 (colly)– police report alongwith pictures.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.D/1- A – affidavit of Shri Amit Kumar, Estate Office, HSVP, Faridabad, Ex.D-1 – order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Ex.D-2 - order dated 23.5.2013 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled Ram Dhingra Vs. HUDA & Anr., Ex.D-3 – Order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning, Ex.D-4 - letter dated 06.12.2021,Ex.D-5 – letter dated 7.09.2022 regarding rejection of Building Plan which was wrongly approved from BPMS system in respect of plot NO. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.D-6 – letter regarding surrender of plot No. 265, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.D-7 – letter dated 10.10.2007 regarding allotment of an alternate plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad is allotted in lieu of Plot No. 265, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.D-8 - Order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, New Delhi, Ex.D-9 – Idemnity bond, Ex.D-10 – affidavit of Smt. Sudarshana Batra.
6. In this case, the Commission has received a order from the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Transfer Applciation No. 5 of 2022 IO No. 3821 of 2022 (directions) in case titled Sudarshana Batra Vs. Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad is requested to decide the aforesaid complaint case pending before it in accordance with law within three months, if possible. Till the disposal of the complaint case, the Non-applicant shall not auction, allot, alienate, transfer or crate third party rights in respect of Plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad.
7. During the course of arguments, Commission ordered HUDA to produce the original file of the plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad. Shri Sunil Chaudhary, Clerk and Shri Jaipal Supdt. appeared on behalf of opposite party before this Commission and also made a statement that they will produce the file on the next date of hearing i.e. 05.12.2022. Statement of Shri Sunil Chaudhary, Clerk, HUDA was also recorded on that date. They are failed to produce the original file after taking so many opportunities to the counsel for the opposite parties as well as the officials of the HUDA . This shows the malafidy of the opposite parties.
8. The main crux of the complaint are that the plot was cancelled on 30.06.2021 by the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh in Revision petition No. 32 of 2021, date of institution: 15.06.2021 which was decided on 30.06.2021 vide Ex.C-33. As per Ex.C-34 Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana Town & Country Planning Department Chandigarh has written a letter to Smt. Sudarshna Batra & Shri S.K.Sharma to attend the hearing before PSTCP Haryana, Mini Secretariat, room No. 335, 3rd floor, Sector-17, Chandigarh on 30.06.2021 at 3.p.m. Copy of the said letter sent to Estate Officer, HSVP Faridabad and request to send the complete factual details to this office within 2 days positively and also depute an official alongwith original plot file before the PSTCP, Haryana on the schedule date, time and venue. HUDA office received the above letter on 09.07.2021 and HUDA make the proceedings upto 14.07.2021. Without receiving the comments and original plot file from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh has passed the order dated 30.06.2021 vide Ex.C-33. The counsel for the complainant argued at length this is sought of a ex-parte order. Order was passed in favour of the opposite party without hearing of the complainant and the complainant has placed on order copy of order dated 30.06.2021 vide Ex.C33 which shows the prejudice of the judgement.
9. In this case, the age of the complainant is almost 69 years and the plot was initially allotted to Shri Tara Dhingra on 25.01.1999 for the alternative plot No. 265, Sector-31, Faridabad instead of plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad, The plot was transferred on 10.10.2007 in the name of Daman Nagpal. After that the plot was transferred in the name of the Sudarshana Batra. The possession of the plot was given to Sudarshana Batra on 31.10.2007 vide Memo No.4073. She is already of 69 years old being a senior citizen. She is fighting the case having the possession and built up half of this plot and residing in the same house since 2008 to 20023.
10. The Estate Officer. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Faridabad on 06.08.2021 vide Ex.C-35 issued a notice for hearing u/s 17(2) to the complainant for the outstanding dues against your site upto 06.08.2021 are of Rs.5,07,815.80 and Extension fees of Rs.12,53,067/-. After hearing the complainant, the Estate Officer, HUDA waived off the enhancement of the plot i.e. Rs.12,53,067/- because it was already built up after getting the evidence of the building vide Ex.C-44 to C-55. Estate Officer, HUDA waived off the extension fee and also after generating the demand notice for the revised site plan and sanctioned it after getting the demanded money and the complainant deposited the demand amountand after that the complainant spent Rs.3 crores almost earning of her whole life on the building and also annexed photographs of the building. After spending the money , The Chief information Technology Officer, HSVP Panchkula has issued memo No. 7888 dated 6.09.2022 vide Ex.C-38 that the site plan was wrongly issued. Earlier the possession certificate bearing memo No. S-4073 dated 31.10.2007 was issued for the plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad vide Ex.C-42. But as per the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department Chandigarh, it was ordered to take possession of memo No. S-529 dated 02.03.02005 vide Ex.C-40. As per order dated 30.06.2021 nothing to to with Ex.C-42.
11. After issuing the notice for the cancellation of the revised site plan, Estate Officer, HUDA issued a letter to SHO, P.S., Sector-31, Faridabad for registration of the FIR. Shri Ashok Malik, I.O recorded the statement of the officials of HUDA and given a cancellation report regarding the letter issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA. A letter No. 31 dated 03.02.2023 was issued to Shri Ashok Malik, Head Constable, Police Station, Sector-31, Faridabad to submit the inquiry report before this Commission on 14.02.2023 On 14.02.2023 Shri Ashok Kumar appeared before this Commission and suffered a statement and submitted the inquiry report vide Ex. C-57 (colly).
12. In the similar case, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh has passed an order in case titled Joginder Pal Bansal Vs. Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran & Others (CWP-4725-2022) Justice Augustine George Masih issued a contempt notice to C.A HUDA for the allotment after span of 30 years and in this case the complainant was almost of 70 years and allotment was done by C.A HUDA within 24 hours from the date of notice. This is a similar case of Sudarshana Batra. She is also a senior citizen of 69 years old and having possession since 1999 and already constructed the house of the plot and also got approval of revised building vide letter dated 06.08.2022 vide Ex.C-56 and spent 3 crore rupees almost earning of her whole life . Now the Estate Officer, HUDA is sealing the property even the approved sanctioned plan and the complainant deposited the demanded money after the order of PSTCP dated 30.06.2021 which shows the malafidy of the department. Some of the officials are getting the benefit of the process of law.
13. Firstly the site plan was passed in favour of the complainant and the revised site plan was also issued and the complainant has deposited the amount as per receipts vide Ex.Ex.C-51A & Ex.C-53 after getting the notice of E.O. HUDA a memo No. Z0001/E0001/UE001/US172/0000001390 dated 06.08.2021 vide Ex.C-35 This shows the bonafidy of the complainant.
14. After perusal of the evidence, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed.
15. Opposite party is directed to: (i) as per the order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 11.05.2022 that “the Non-applicant shall not auction, allot, alienate, transfer or create third party rights in respect of plot No. 193, Sector-31, Faridabad.
(ii) Opposite party can not cancelled after sanctioned the revised site plan and the complainant has also sanctioned the site plan earlier and paid the due amount already to the opposite party and spent a huge amount of Rs.3 cores earning of her whole life on the construction of the above said house.
(iii) Opposite party is directed not to seal the constructed house. Complainant is at liberty to complete the house and get completion in due course of law.
(iii) Maximum opposite party can charge collector rate of the plot at the time allotment i.e. in the year 1999 and adjust the deposited money already paid to the opposite party- HUDA and give interest on the paid amount.
(iv) overhaul the account of the complainant and issue the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant after taking the dues amount, if any., in accordance with law. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. In case of non- compliance, opposite party will pay compensation for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) to the complainant.
Announced on: 21.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad
