SANJEEV GOYAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition u/s21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ' 'the Act ' '), by the Complainant, is to the order, dtd. 21/10/2015 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal, Haryana at Panchkula (for short, ' 'the State Commission ' ') in First Appeal No. 680 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission affirming the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ' 'the District Forum ' ') on 10/4/2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 211 of 2014, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Complainant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Revision petition, as culled out from the complaint, are that the Complainant/Petitioner purchased a plot No. 586, Sector 27, Panchkula from Sudhir Verma and Madhuri Verma on 18/3/2014. The said plot was re-allotted to him by the Respondent/ Opposite Party in the Complaint, namely Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, "the HUDA "). Since, the plot was 5 feet below the road level and the Complainant wanted to start construction on the same, he requested the HUDA to provide filling sand to level the plot. It was also informed to the HUDA that the estimated expenditure to level the uneven plot upto the road, was approximately 2 lakh. As no response was received from HUDA, the Complainant spent a sum of 1,90,500 for filling of sand in his plot to make it road level and submitted his claim with the HUDA. The HUDA replied that as per allotment letter, they were responsible for development of roads, water supply, sewer, storm water and street light only and they were not under any obligation to level the uneven plots/sites. Aggrieved by the casual attitude of the HUDA, alleging deficiency in service on its part, Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to them to refund the cost of filling of plot, i.e.1,90,500/-; pay 2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and to pay 2,11,000 towards cost of litigation.

(3.) Upon notice, Complaint was resisted by the HUDA by filing its written version. Besides, raising the preliminary issues that the Complainant being re-allottee of the plot which was originally allotted to one, Smt. Archana Pasi vide allotment letter No. 996 dtd. 3/11/2006, was not a "Consumer " as defined in the Act and the Complaint was barred by limitation, it was pleaded on merits that as per condition No. 17 of the said allotment letter, the HUDA was not responsible for leveling of uneven sites; the plot in question was transferred in favour of Sudir Verma and Madhuri Verma vide Re-allotment letter No.5623 dtd. 2/6/2008 and the Condition 11 of the said re-allotment letter provided that the HUDA would not be liable for leveling uneven sites and even the possession of the plot was taken by them without any protest or objection; finally, the plot was re-allotted to the Complainant and, therefore, he was bound by the terms and conditions of the Allotment letters, provisions of HUDA Act, rules, regulation, guidelines etc.; HUDA is responsible for development of only roads, water supply, sewer and electricity and not for levelling the uneven sites; the co-allottee, Smt. Bimla Goyal has not joined the complaint as Complainant; the possession of the plot was offered to the Complainant after completion of development work; the plot had been purchased by the Complainant with open eyes from the earlier allottees and as such no cause of action existed in his favour.