RITA DHINGRA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 07.05.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1839/2008, "Rita Dhingra versus HUDA & Anr.", vide which the order dated 26.08.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in complaint no. 613/2005 was upheld, but the direction given in the order of the District Forum for the refund of the amount deposited by complainant was also set aside. The District Forum had dismissed the consumer complaint in question, as being time barred, but allowed refund of the amount deposited with the respondent/OP. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted plot no. 175 in sector 5, Urban Estate Karnal on 07.04.92 for Rs. 3,09,600/ -. The complainant deposited 25% of the total amount and the remaining amount was to be deposited in instalments. The complainant deposited the first instalment of Rs. 38,700/ - in the year 1993 and thereafter, they did not deposit any instalment taking the plea that the respondent/OP had not delivered the possession of the plot to them. The respondent issued a show -cause notice to them on 7.12.94, asking them to explain, why the delayed interest and penalty may not be imposed upon them. Thereafter, there was correspondence between the complainants and respondents, but the complainant did not deposit the amount demanded by the respondent. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question in the year 2005, stating therein that the OP should be directed to hand over physical possession of the plot in question and should be asked to accept the principal amount of balance cost, enhancement compensation and some other charges, but should be directed to waive off interest and penalty on the amounts so demanded. The District Forum dismissed the complaint being time barred, but directed that the OP should refund the amount deposited by the complainant within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the order. This order was challenged in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order upheld the order of the District Forum, but also stated that the direction to refund the amount is set aside. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) IT was contended by the authorised representative of the petitioner at the time of arguments that he had paid 25% of the price of the plot at the time of allotment and the balance money was to be paid in six instalments to the OP. However, the allottee had paid only one instalment and thereafter did not deposit any money. He has drawn our attention to notice dated 7.12.1994 issued under section 17(1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the respondent/OP, in which the petitioner has been asked to remit the amount of instalment along with interest for the delay in depositing the instalment and a penalty of Rs. 3,870/ -. Another show -cause notice was issued on 3.7.98, asking them to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 32,640/ - may not be imposed on them. The authorised representative of the petitioner stated that since the possession of the plot was not delivered to them by the OP, they had not deposited the amount, in question. He stated, however, that they were prepared to deposit the requisite amount for the plot including the enhanced compensation but the penalty, interest and non -construction fee etc. should be waived off. He further stated that they had tried to remit the amount to OP by means of demand draft, but this was returned by them.

(3.) WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.