BUDHI RAM Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Budhi Ram in this revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 5th of August, 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in First Appeal No. 982 of 2006, vide which the State Commission has set aside the order dated 15th of February, 2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad.

(2.) The brief facts not disputed between the parties are that one Mrs. Meera Arora was allotted plot No. 2299 in Sector-2, Urban Estate Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 18th of November, 1998 by the Respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The plot in question was purchased from the original allottee by the present complainant Budhi Ram. It was transferred in his favour by the Respondent-HUDA on 10th of March, 1999. It is the allegation of the Petitioner complainant that the opposite party-HUDA did not undertake any development of the area nor delivered the physical possession of the plot. On the contrary, they demanded the payment of the balance price of the plot alongwith enhancement cost with compound interest. Despite his repeated requests to develop the area and hand over the physical possession of the plot, there was no response from the Respondent-HUDA. In this background, he submitted an application on the 14th of February, 2003 to the Estate Officer, Faridabad, vide which he surrendered the plot and sought refund of his deposited amount. The Estate Officer after deducting 10% of the total consideration refunded the balance amount on the 29th of April, 2003 and cancelled the allotment. The refunded amount was accepted by the complainant without any protest. However, contending that he had surrendered the plot under compelling circumstances, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum on 13.12.2005 seeking a direction from the District Consumer Forum to the opposite party-HUDA to deliver the physical possession of the plot in question or allot any other alternate plot in the same sector at the same rate without charging any penalty or interest and also to direct payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount already deposited by him and award a compensation of Rs. 1.00 Lakh for causing mental tension, agony and harassment etc., besides cost on account of escalation and litigation. The District Consumer Forum vide its order referred to earlier allowed the complaint and granted the reliefs as under:

(3.) Aggrieved upon the order passed by the District Consumer Forum an appeal was filed by the opposite party-HUDA before the State Commission. The main grounds advanced against the order of the District Consumer Forum were that the complainant having surrendered the plot of his own free will and having accepted the refund of his deposited amount without any protest ceased to be a 'consumer'. A plea of the complaint being barred by limitation was also advanced contending that since the refund had been accepted on 29th of April, 2003 and a complaint came to be filed before the District Consumer Forum on 13th of December, 2005, clearly it was hit by the period of limitation provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further argued before the State Commission that the Petitioner being a re-allottee was not entitled to any relief since he had full knowledge about the status of the plot in question at the time of purchase from the original allottee and as such could not raise the bogie of non-development which is a pretext to justify the non-payment of the remaining cost of the plot/and its enhanced price. Referring to the request for surrender/cancellation of the plot by the Petitioner, it was also submitted that the surrender in fact had been necessitated due to the bad financial position of the Petitioner complainant and it was only an afterthought to seek return of the plot as the cost of the plot over the years had phenomenally appreciated.