(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Mr. Kehar Singh, who was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (District Forum for short), assailing the order dated 27th of January, 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short ). Vide the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant on the ground of limitation as well as on merit.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant had applied for allotment of a residential plot in Sector-12a, Gurgaon, whereupon he was allotted plot no.382-B in the said sector at Gurgaon. The petitioner/complainant alleges that despite his depositing Rs.75,786/- being the cost of the plot, the respondent/opposite parties did not offer him possession of the said plot but allotted an alternate plot bearing number 587-P in Sector-15, Gurgaon. The petitioner/complainant also deposited the differential cost of Rs.1,92,066/-, on the basis of which on 19th of October, 1995 he was delivered possession by the respondent/opposite parties. In the year 2001 the respondent/opposite parties issued a demand notice to the petitioner/complainant seeking some more money and he deposited a sum of Rs.3,52,463/- under protest and also filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of the said amount with interest, compensation and cost of litigation.
(3.) Before the District Forum both the parties placed their respective cases. While the petitioner/complainant advanced the arguments as indicated above, the respondent/opposite parties stated that the possession of the earlier allotted plot could not be delivered since the petitioner/complainant did not accept the same and approached the Honble High Court praying for allotment of plot no.587-P, Sector-15, Part-I, Gurgaon at the prevalent rate, which was allotted to him at the rate of Rs.635.62 ps. per sq. mt. and possession was delivered. The petitioner/complainant has willfully accepted the possession of plot no.587-P and therefore there was no deficiency in service.