JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) HUDA seeks to assail the order dated 4.11.09 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 315/02. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by HUDA against the order dated 11.12.01 passed by the ..2.. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby the complaint was accepted with the following directions to the petitioner:- “A) To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- pertaining to the escalation of cost price of the construction. B) Interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. the date of deposit of the installment amount uptill the date of offer of the possession and C) An amount of Rs.1500/- of litigation expenses.” 2. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it could appear that when the appeal came up for hearing, the State Commission was informed that the Appellant, HUDA had complied with the order and directions given by the consumer forum in toto and, therefore, the appeal had become infractuous and did not subsist for decision. Consequently, the State Commission, going by the said factual position, dismissed the appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He challenges the impugned order primarily on the ground that the District Forum was not justified in granting the relief (A) for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the escalation in cost of construction and also in awarding ..3.. interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. date of deposit of the installment amount uptil the date of offer of the possession. He contends that the said relief are excessive. The contention is based on the premise that the complainant was a subsequent purchaser of the plot from the original allottee and, therefore, he could not approach the consumer forum and could not have been granted relief to the above extent. We find that the said contention is devoid of any merit because the Petitioner, HUDA had recognized the transfer of the plot by the original allottee in favour of the complainant and had dealt with him as the original allottee of the plot. In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that the HUDA had already complied with the order passed by the District Forum several years back, the HUDA was not properly advised to challenge the order so passed by the State Commission before this Commission. Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed without any merit.