MAJOR JAI PARKASH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana dated 24.01.2012 in appeal no.682 of 2009 and appeal no.1521 of 2009 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Gurgaon preferred by the respondents/OPs and dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Forum preferred by the petitioner/complainant.

(2.) Briefly, put the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant was allotted plot no.796-P, Sector 38, Gurgoan under defence quota by the OPs vide allotment letter dated 15.12.1999. Pursuant to the allotment letter, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.7,61,934/- (25% of total price of the plot) with the OPs. The complainant/petitioner however failed to pay the installments in time; consequently, the OPs imposed penalty of Rs.25,397/- on account of non payment of installments. The complainant vide his letter dated 18.12.2002 requested the OPs to set aside the penalty or to refund his money. The OPs instead of waiving the penalty cancelled the allotment of the said plot and refunded a sum of Rs.5,46,032/- after deducting a sum of Rs.2,15,902/- (10% of the price of the plot). Grievance of the complainant/petitioner is that the cancellation of the allotment of plot by the OPs and also deduction of 10% of the price of the plot while refunding the payment made by the petitioner is without any justification and it amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice.

(3.) The case of the OPs is that the complainant vide his letter dated 18.12.2002 has surrendered the plot and requested for refund of payment made by him thus the OPs were justified in canceling the allotment and refunding the deposited amount after deduction of 10% of the price of the plot as per the HUDA policy. The OPs further claimed that once the complainant had surrendered the plot and accepted the refund without protest, he is not a consumer and as such, his complaint is not maintainable. The OPs also took the plea that the complaint is barred by limitation.