TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') assails the order dtd. 6/12/2012 in FA no. 672 of 2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission'). This order had dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, 'the District Forum') in CC no. 575 of 2009 dtd. 6/1/2010.

(2.) The facts in brief, as stated by the petitioner, are that the respondent had registered on 1/12/2005 for allotment of a residential plot of 350 sq yards in the petitioner's project named 'TDI City', Kundli by paying an amount of Rs.5,95,000.00 by way of cheque. A time bound payment plan was agreed upon whereby the respondent was required to make periodical payments. On 15/1/2006 plot no. K 69 measuring 350 sq yards was allotted and the respondent made payments amounting to Rs.24,46,500.00 against a sale consideration of Rs.27,12,500.00. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent did not execute the Plot Buyers Agreement with the petitioner despite the admitted service of a letter dtd. 4/10/2007 forwarding the same. The respondent was also required to pay the balance amount of External Development Charges (EDC) to the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to take possession of the plot or make payment in time till March 2010. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Sonepat, alleging that the petitioner had failed to hand over possession as per the terms of the application and was deficient in providing services. The petitioner cancelled the registration of the respondent vide letter dtd. 31/7/2010 on the ground that despite the petitioner reminding the respondent repeatedly to make the balance payment, there was no payment or response for the same. Hence, petitioner was compelled to cancel the allotment vide letter dtd. 31/7/2010. The petitioner contends that the complaint before the District Forum was barred by time and was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction as the relief being claimed by the respondent related to a plot for which exceeded Rs.20.00 lakh that had been paid and was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum at that time. The order of the District Forum dtd. 6/1/2010 allowing the complaint was challenged before the State Commission in FA No. 672 of 2012 on these grounds by the petitioner. Vide order dtd. 6/12/2012, the State Commission dismissed the appeal, which was challenged before this Commission. The appeal was allowed on 3/12/2015 and the matter remanded to the State Commission. As the State Commission again dismissed the appeal on 17/2/2016 the same is now impugned before this Commission.

(3.) This revision petition is filed on the grounds that the impugned order of the State Commission is erroneous as the cost of the subject property exceeds the District Forum's pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.20.00 lakh under the Act which was erroneously ignored by the State Commission. It is also stated that the order is a non-speaking order and has been passed without reasons. It is also argued that the District Forum had erred in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and the allotment of the respondent has been cancelled prior to the filing of the complaint which has not been dealt by the fora below. It is also argued that the State Commission has erred in not considering that the District Forum should not have given any finding regarding the issue of limitation since the last payment made by the respondent was in December 2006 whereas the complaint was filed in 2009. It has therefore, been prayed that the order of the State Commission dtd. 17/2/2016 be set aside.