Aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short -2- the ‘State Commission’) in RBT No. 442 of 2006 in appeal No. 151 of 2001, the original complainant has approached this Commission through this petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the Respondent-HUDA against the order dated 15.12.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon in complaint case No. 1151 of 06.9.2000. It appears that initially the complaint was filed before the Haryana State Commission but due exigencies of service the said appeal was transferred to the board of the State Commission of the UT Chandigarh. By the said order, the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the respondent-HUDA to allot the alternative plot at the same price at which the original plot was allotted with a further direction to pay interest on the deposit of the complainant as per the HUDA policy with effect from two years after the date of the deposit. The State Commission allowed the appeal of HUDA and set aside the order of the District Forum thereby holding that complainant was liable to pay the enhanced price of the alternative plot as he had willingly accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment otherwise he had the option to take back the price of the plot. -3- 2. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Mittra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Badhran, learned Counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner-complainant before the State Commission on the date of the hearing of the appeal and the State Commission has incorrectly recorded the presence of the counsel-Mr. Roopak Bansal. That apart, he would challenge the order passed by the State Commission as illegal and erroneous mainly on the ground that the same is not based on the correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and least it being in consonance with the policy of the HUDA itself which provide the allotment of alternative plot at old price in certain given circumstances. The case of the present complainant was covered under the said policy decision. 3. Mr. Badhran, counsel for the respondent-HUDA does not dispute the above position but he submits that going by the policy decision of HUDA, the complainant could not have been awarded the interest on the deposited amount with effect from two years after the date of deposit and the policy provided for payment of interest only after three years from the date of the deposit of the amount in case the possession of the plot was not given within three years. -4- 4. Having considered the above submissions, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is legally unsustainable and must be set aside. We therefore set aside the said order and restore the order passed by the District Forum, except with the modification that the interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable by HUDA with effect from three years after the date of deposit till the payment of handing over the possession of the alternative plot to the complainant-petitioner. Once it is found that the possession of the plot was not given within three years, there was no question of imposing any penalty for late payment charge etc. Therefore, the penalty, if any, levied shall be deemed to have been quashed. The Revision Petition is answered in the above terms. | 
