CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HUDA PANCHKULA vs Veena Kumari

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24. 10. 2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following direction has been made to the appellant-opposite parties: "to satisfy the grouse of the complainant following order is passed-1. The respondents are ordered to pay interest on the deposit of the amount of the complainant as per HUDA. Policy with effect from passing of 3 years from the date of original allotment of the plot till its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. The respondents are order to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order. "

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that plot No. 1123 located in Sector 21-D, Faridabad was allotted to Dharamvir Singh as per letter bearing memo No. 2087 dated 14. 6. 1994. Thereafter, the said plot was re-allotted to the complainant as per letter bearing memo No. 786 dated 23. 11. 2000. The complainant deposited the enhanced land compensation of the plot so demanded by the opposite parties. The grievance of the complainant is that she was entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on the deposited amount with the opposite parties after 14. 6. 1997 as per the policy issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and accordingly it was prayed that necessary directions be given to the opposite parties in this regard. The opposite parties contested the complaint while refuting the stand of the opposite parties. The District Forum accepted the version of the complainant and issued directions to the opposite parties as per order dated 24. 10. 2003 noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties has been heard at length. None has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent-complainant at the time of arguments.

There is a delay of 134 days in filing the appeal. As the patent illegality has been committed by the District Forum in ignoring the factual position brought on record, in the interest of justice the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

AT the threshold of arguments learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties has submitted that the complainant had preferred an appeal dated 26. 2. 2002 before the Chief Administrator, HUDA seeking interest on the deposited amount as per HUDA policy which prayer was rejected as per order dated 24. 5. 2002 passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and for that reason the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The submission made, as such, cannot be brushed aside. The complainant herself has stated in para No. 11 of the complaint that she had preferred an appeal dated 26. 2. 2002 to Chief Administrator, HUDA with a prayer for allowing interest on the deposits made by her but the Chief Administrator, HUDA, had not allowed the interest on the deposited amount as per order dated 24. 5. 2002 conveyed to the complainant as per letter No. 5251. The position of law in this regard stands well settled in case Surinder Mohan v. Municipal Corporation and Anr. , III (2006) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was observed that the complainant before filing the complaint before the District Forum for the alleged deficiency for not providing the basic amenities had also filed a representation before the Chief Administrator, which was dismissed. The revision petition against that order was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator. It was held that the Commission was not the revisional or appellate authority against the order passed by the Advisor to the Chief Administrator, U. T. , Chandigarh. It would be appropriate to refer to the discussion contained in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the order as under: "5. As per memo of appeal filed before us, it is clear as per Para 2 of the memo of appeal that the allotment of booth was cancelled by the respondent Estate Officer for non-payment of the premium. Appeal against which was filed before the Chief Administrator, which was dismissed in the year 1998. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was filed before the Advisor to the Administrator, U. T. Chandigarh which as per statement given before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant has also been dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator. It is an admitted position that in this revision petition along with other grounds, the question of lack of basic amenities was also agitated by the appellant. There is no doubt that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides additional remedy for redressal of grievance of a consumer. But it does not envisage and this Commission has not been supporting ''forum-hopping'' by a consumer. If a certain route has been adopted, of their own volition, by a consumer, then he has to pursue his remedy to the end from that agency. In this case, admittedly the order of the cancellation and lack of amenities was agitated before the Chief Administrator, U. T. Chandigarh who dismissed the appeal. Revision petition was filed against that order which also contained ''relief'' with regard to lack of amenities which has also been dismissed. This Commission is not a revisional or appellate authority against the order passed by the Advisor to the Chief Administrator, U. T. , Chandigarh. " 6. On the basis of above observations the appeal was dismissed besides on the ground of limitation. In this case as well the complainant had filed an appeal to Administrator, HUDA, which was found without any merits and for that reason was dismissed. Therefore, this Commission cannot be construed as a revisional/appellate authority against the order passed by the above stated authority. As the District Forum has not given due consideration to the above stated factual position while deciding the complaint, the order of the District Forum, as such, cannot be sustained.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, while accepting the appeal the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. The amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules. Appeal allowed.