HARISH KUMAR vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short ''the State Commission'') by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent-Authority against the order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short ''the District Forum'') by which the District Forum had accepted the complaint of the petitioner. Petitioner, Shri Harish Kumar is the original complainant in this case. The District Forum while accepting the complaint had granted the following reliefs vide its order dated 22.8.2006 : "For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the respondents to allot the original plot bearing 549 in Sector 18 HUDA, Panipat to the petitioner if the said plot is lying still vacant and is not allotted to some other person and in the alternative if the said plot has been allotted to some other than the respondents shall allot an alternative plot to the petitioner on the original terms and conditions of the same size in the same sector as earlier allotted to the petitioner, and the petitioner shall be liable to pay remaining cost of the plot with interest and penalty as per the rules of the HUDA. The respondents shall make the compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties concerned be informed accordingly and file be consigned after due compliance".

BRIEFLY stated, admitted case of the parties is that Plot No.549 measuring 310.5 sq. meters located in Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat was originally allotted to one Smt. Omwati vide memo No.9138 on 29.7.1998. The possession of the said plot was offered by the respondent-Authority vide memo No.5602 on 13.6.2001. Thereafter, the said plot was purchased by the petitioner from the original allottee and was accordingly transferred in the name of the petitioner � Harish Kumar vide letter bearing allotment no. 11856 dated 3.10.2001. The petitioner submitted an application dated 18.5.2004 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat stating therein that he has not been able to pay the balance installments in respect of the price of the plot and by surrendering the plot sought refund of the amount deposited by him as per HUDA policy. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner was accepted and he was refunded a sum of Rs. 5,87,515/- vide cheque no.1110196 dated 2.8.2004 after deducting 10% of the consideration amount as per HUDA policy. The facts of the case are not under dispute upto this stage. Later on, the petitioner filed the present complaint by taking the plea that he had surrendered the plot under compelling circumstances because the respondent-Authority had not delivered possession of the plot after completion of the development works in the area. He further took the plea that the development works like shopping centre, High school, dispensary, post office and telephone exchange in that sector had not been established which according to him were necessary before offering the physical possession of the plot. Thus, the petitioner sought re-allotment of the plot, payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the total deposited amount from the date of allotment till the date of refund, to adjust 10% of deducted amount in the price of alternative plot along with 18% interest and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

RESPONDENT-Authority resisted the complaint and filed its reply thereto denying the allegations of the petitioner and took the plea that since the petitioner was facing financial hardships and was not in a position to pay the balance price of the plot and had voluntarily surrendered the same vide its application dated 18.5.2004 received in the respondent-Authority office on 19.5.2004, the respondent-Authority had accepted the request and refunded the amount as per HUDA policy. The respondent further took the plea that all the basic amenities in the area like sewerage, water, roads and electricity had already been provided and thereafter possession of the plot was offered. With these averments, it was pleaded by the by the respondents that the complaint be dismissed.

ON appraisal of the issues and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted substantial relief to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order which was later reversed by the State Commission vide its impugned order under challenge through the present revision petition.

WE have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate appearing for the respondent-Authority. We have also perused the record of the case placed before us. It is to be noted that the State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner after detailed consideration of the following two important issues raised by the respondent-Authority in its appeal:- (i) The complainant being re-allottee cannot take the plea with respect to the non-development of the area (ii) After surrendering the plot and accepting the refund, the complainant cannot re-open his case for restoration of the plot.

WHILE returning its finding in favour of the respondent-Authority, the State Commission relied on the case law cited in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Raje Ram � 1 (2009) CPJ 56 (SC). In respect of the second issue raised by the respondent-Authority, the State Commission decided in favour of the respondent-Authority relying on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. M/s. Zuari Industries � 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 104 (DB) and in another case HUDA Vs. Pashu Lal Nagpal � 2010 (1) CPC 277.

DURING the course of arguments before us besides reiterating the submission made by the petitioner in his revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment dated 18.1.2010 of the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition (in short ''the SLP'') of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Irish Print Services Pvt. Ltd. SLP (C) No. 5140 of 2009 and also the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vijay Aggarwal � 2004 (2) CPR 76 (SC) as well as the order dated 20.7.2010 of the National Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Des Rattan Dutta (R.P. No.4361 of 2009). Learned Counsel further argued that since the respondent-Authority did not refund the entire deposited amount with interest in spite of repeated visits to their office and personal requests and was still holding the remaining 10% of the deposited amount, the petitioner indicated his willingness and accordingly made a request through his complaint to get back the same plot or any other plot in the same sector and was ready to pay the balance amount of the plot at the rate as agreed between the parties at the time of allotment of the plot. But, the complaint had to be filed since the respondent-Authority did not agree to the genuine request of the petitioner. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case in which the petitioner had been forced to surrender the plot earlier, the District Forum rightly accepted the complaint and the State Commission has gravely erred in reversing that well-reasoned order and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained keeping in view the facts of the case and the case law relied on by the learned counsel.

HAVING regard to the rival contentions raised before us, we find that the State Commission has considered all the relevant aspects in great detail in the impugned order. Even at the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the petitioner who is a re-allottee from the original allottee of the plot in question surrendered the same voluntarily because of his financial difficulties. Perusal of his surrender letter which is reproduced by the State Commission in the impugned order does not leave us in any manner of doubt in this regard. Not only this, he had also made it abundantly clear in his letter that the respondent could refund the balance amount after deducting 10% in accordance with the policy of the respondent-Authority and there is no mention of payment of interest by the petitioner in the letter while surrendering the plot and requesting for refund. The contention and the pleas regarding the non-development of area and delay in delivery of possession, etc. are clearly by way of an afterthought on the part of the petitioner after surrendering the plot and accepting the refund. In our considered opinion, the District Forum gravely erred in ignoring these undisputed facts while accepting the complaint. It is absolutely clear to us that the petitioner''s claim has been rejected by the State Commission based on testimony of his own letter contents of which are not in dispute. So far as the reliance of the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Irish Print Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is concerned, we find that in this case the SLP is disposed by the Apex Court keeping in view the statements made by the learned Counsel for the parties. There is no ratio laid down by the Apex Court in that case and the SLP was disposed of in pursuance of the statements made by the Counsel for the parties. The outcome of that case, therefore, cannot provide the desired relief to the petitioner in this case. Similarly, the ratio in the other 3 cases showed by the Counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the present case because the main issue under consideration in the present case is not that of refund of the amount deducted from the total deposit but one of re-allotment of the plot or an alternative plot. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground which would call for our interference with the well-reasoned and detailed order passed by the State Commission. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission in its impugned order while accepting the appeal of the respondent-Authority and reversing the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.