VINOD GROVER Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 14.1.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission) in first appeal No. 539 of 2005. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) against an order dated 8.3.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon in the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant. In the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant, the District Consumer Forum had given certain directions to HUDA not to charge any interest over the due installment till the date of offer of possession i.e. 10.11.2000 with the stipulation that the complainant shall deposit the due installments as per HUDA policy and the resumption order of the said kiosk site was quashed. HUDA was also directed to pay interest @ 18% over the entire amount till 10.11.2000. An appeal was filed by HUDA against the said order before the State Commission, which appeal was allowed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the complainant was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Fora in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L.I.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors., 2009 4 SCC 660. However, liberty was granted to the complainant to work out his remedy in accordance with law before a civil Court if so advised. In doing so, he may seek the advantage of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, 1995 3 SCC 583.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the complainant are in a narrow compass. The complainant had given a bid in an open auction for the allotment of a kiosk site. His bid was accepted and, accordingly, he (deposited 25% of the auction money, however, the balance instalments were not paid according to the complainant for the reason that the development was not complete and the amenities as were promised were not provided. It was only in the year 2000 that the possession of the plot was offered and on the failure of the complainant to pay the instalments, proceedings of the resumption of the site were started.

(3.) The question which we are called upon to consider and answer in this case is as to whether the State Commission was justified in taking the view which it has taken by relegating the complainant to the remedy of the civil Court in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. learner Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order of the State Commission primarily on the strength of the clauses of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 12.3.2000, in particular, Clause 6, which is as under--