Delay condoned. By this Revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, the sole Opposite Party -2- in the Complaint, questions the correctness of a common order, dated 10.02.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.623 and 699 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order, dated 14.07.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.280 of 2004. By the said order, on appraisal of the material on record, which included the advertisement and the brochure, issued by the Petitioner, inviting applications for allotment of free hold residential plots in Sector 2 of IMT in Bawal, District Manesar, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainant a sum of ₹32,400/- charged from him as extra charges for the corner plot. Both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the said 10% extra price charged by the Petitioner on the ground that the subject plot was a corner plot, was illegal as neither in the advertisement nor in the brochure there was any such extra charge stipulation. On a pointed query by us, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has candidly admitted that the said finding has been recorded by the Forums below on a correct reading of the aforesaid documents. -3- That being the factual position, we are in complete agreement with the Fora below that the said extra charge could not be demanded in the allotment letter. In view of the above, and bearing in mind the quantum of the amount involved, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, in limine. |
