AKASH KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 465 / 2006, Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Akash Kumar, vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Plot No. 902, Sector-2, Palwal, Haryana having an area of 160 sq. yards was allotted to the petitioner/ complainant AkashKumarby the respondent/ OP Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA') vide allotment letter bearing Memo No. 835 dated 19.2.1998. The tentative price of the said plot was fixed at Rs. 1,88,190. It has been stated in the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum that he deposited a total sum of Rs. 2,04,288 with the OP, as per terms and conditions of allotment letter and requested them several times to deliver the possession of the flat. However, the respondent/OP could not deliver the physical possession of the plot, because development works were not carried out on the site. The respondent, therefore, applied in writing for refund of the amount deposited with the OP, along with interest thereon. The respondent refunded a sum of Rs. 1,71,938 to the complainant after deducting an amount of Rs. 32,350 as 10% amount of the total sale-price and enhanced compensation, delayed interest, penalty, etc. The complainant then learnt that there was full development around the plot and he requested the respondent to hand over the physical possession of the said plot or to allot him alternative plot in the same sector. He then filed a consumer complaint in question before the District Forum and the District Forum ordered that the same Plot 902, Sector-2, Palwal be allotted to the complainant and in case, the same was not found vacant or unallotted, an alternative plot should be allotted to him on the same address. It was also ordered not to charge any kind of interest, penalty, extension fee from the complainant and to pay him an interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited till realisation and also a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. An appeal was filed before the State Commission against this order of the District Forum. The order of the District Forum was set aside by the State Commission vide impugned order, saying that the complainant was not a consumer of the OP, on the date of filing the complaint, as he had voluntarily surrendered the plot in question. In addition, the State Commission observed as follows:

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the said plot had been allotted to the complainant in the year 1998, but since development had not been carried out in the area, the complainant applied for refund in the year 2004. Although, the OP stated that possession of the said plot had been offered on 7.6.2002, but the said fact was not in the knowledge of the complainant. Learned Counsel further stated that although the refund had been sent by the OP, but the plot in question had not been cancelled and it stood in the name of the complainant only. When the District Forum decided the case in his favour, the same plot was again allotted to the complainant and the possession of the same was also handed over on 28.5.2008. The entire amount demanded by the OP had been deposited by the petitioner and non-encumbrance/no due certificate had also been issued in his favour by the OP on 23.6.2009. Further, the building plan for construction of a house on the plot had also been sent on 31.10.2009. Taking all these factors into account, there was no reason for the State Commission to set aside the order of the District Forum. The learned Counsel stated that the present revision petition should be disposed of as infructuous. He referred to order passed by another Bench of National Commission in "RP No. 847/2011, Dharamvir Singh v. HUDA & Ors., in this regard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pleaded that there were a number of cases, with similar facts, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court and the National Commission had held that the allotment of surrendered plot in favour of complainant / consumer was in order.