Ashok Kumar Chug S/O Sant Lal Chugh vs Haryana Urban Development Authority (Huda)

PETITIONER /Petitioner has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, ''Act'') against order dated 19.10.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, ''State Commission'') in First Appeal No.896 of 2006.

BRIEF facts are that Petitioner/Complainant was allotted plot No.1358 Sector 34, HUDA, Gurgaon vide Memo no. 665 dated 26.2.1998 and total tentative price of the same was Rs. 4,80,680/ -. Petitioner had initially deposited 10% of the price amounting to Rs.48,068/ -. After allotment he deposited Rs.72,102/ - as 15% of the price. Balance amount of Rs.3,60,510/ - was to be deposited in six equal installments. Petitioner could not deposit the installments due to some domestic problems. Petitioner approached the respondents and desired to deposit the installments but did not get any positive response. Lastly on 13.07.2005 he was told by the respondents that plot has been resumed. They have already sent the amount through cheque after deducting 10% of the price of plot. Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the remaining installments. Thereafter, a consumer complaint was filed against the respondents before the District Forum, praying therein that respondents be directed to accept the entire price of the plot and deliver the possession, alongwith compensation.

RESPONDENT S in its written statement admitted allotment of the plot and deposit of 25% of the tentative price. It is stated that show cause notice under Section 17 (1) and (2) of HUDA Act,1977 dated 25.08.2000, was issued to the petitioner for depositing the sum of Rs.2,15,192/ - and date of hearing was fixed on 29.08.2000. But petitioner failed to deposit the same. Therefore, penalty of Rs.21,519/ - was imposed vide memo No.7555 dated 19.12.2000. Another notice under Section 17(3) of the HUDA Act was served upon the petitioner on 26.3.2001. Thereafter, notice under Section 17(4) of HUDA Act, vide memo No. 5499 dated 01.10.2001 was served and date of hearing was fixed as 29.10.2001. However, petitioner failed to clear the dues. Accordingly, plot was resumed vide letter no. 2631, dated 04.03.2002 and 10% of the total cost was forfeited. Balance sum of Rs.170,753/ - was refunded to the petitioner. Thus, respondents are not negligent in their services and petitioner is not entitled to any relief. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short, ''District Forum'') vide order dated 02.02.2006 accepted the complaint and passed following directions; "The Ops to allot any of the plot in Section 45, HUDA, Gurgaon (having equal area to that of Plot No. 1538) to the Petitioner, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest and penalties etc. for non -payment of the residue amount of the cost of the plot and simultaneously, the petitioner by him at the same rate at which the Ops shall claim from the Petitioner."

BEING aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order, accepted the same and set aside the order of District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though petitioner was unable to deposit the sum of installments within time, but he never refused to pay the same. Moreover, respondent did not write even a single letter to the petitioner asking him to deposit the amount or to take the possession. Petitioner was always ready to deposit the entire amount as per the rules. The petitioner has not received any refund amount. In support, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon following judgments; (i) Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. Vs. Jag Mohan, 2008 1 CPJ 47 and (ii) Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2010 1 SCC 135.

ON the other hand, it is stated by learned counsel for the respondents, that since petitioner did not deposit the installments due in time, his allotment was cancelled. Thereafter, refund amount was duly sent to the petitioner. The plot in question thus stand resumed by the respondents.

STATE Commission, in its impugned order observed; " We have waited for the learned counsel for the respondent -complainant, but none has put appearance on behalf of the respondent -complainant. Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing the learned counsel for appellants -opposite parties and perusing the case file.

Admittedly, the due installments amount were not deposited by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter due to some financial constraint as has been admitted by him in para 3 of the complaint. After issuing the notices Under Sections 17 (1), (2) and (3), the plot in question was resumed by the opposite parties and after deducting 10% earnest money, the balance amount of Rs.1,70,753/ - was refunded to the complainant vide cheque dated 8.7.2002. Thus, the complainant himself was deficient for not depositing the due installment amount as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, and the opposite parties cannot be blamed for resumption of the plot. Mere so, the present complaint was filed by the complainant was not maintainable in view of Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because he had received the refund vide cheque dated 8.7.2002 and filed the present complaint on 8.9.2005 i.e. beyond the period of two years as provided in Section 24 -A of the Act.

As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, it is fully established on record that the appellants -opposite parties had rightly resumed the plot due to non -payment of due installment amount as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. More so, the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. Hence, the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed".

IT is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under this Section, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission only where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 3 Scale 654 has observed; "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".

IT is an admitted case of the petitioner, that he himself was the defaulter. Once the petitioner was a defaulter, no deficiency can be attributed to the respondents. Further, as per defence of the respondents, refund amount was issued in the year 2002, whereas consumer complaint was filed on 08.09.2005, i.e. beyond the period of two years as provided under Section 24 -A of the Act.

ACCORDINGL Y , we do not find any infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order. The present revision petition having no merits at all, is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/ -(Rupees Ten Thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" within six weeks from today.

IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST for compliance on 30th January, 2015.