HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs RAJ SINGH AHLAWAT

-CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 15. 11. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant penalty amount of Rs. 50,000 imposed upon the complainant by the appellant-opposite parties has been quashed and further direction has been given to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 20,000 already deposited, to the complainant within a period of 60 days of the passing of the order failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum w. e. f. 15. 1. 2003 onwards.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case as can be gathered from the record need to be noticed in the forefront. The complainant had completed the construction of house on plot No. 172 located in Sector-1, Rohtak. Thereafter, he applied for getting the completion certificate to the opposite parties. Because of certain violation committed, while raising construction in terms of the approved map, the opposite parties imposed penalty amount of Rs. 50,000 upon the complainant. The complainant has challenged the said penalty amount. He had also filed an appeal but the same was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed revision which was decided on merits against him. Thereafter, he deposited Rs. 20,000 under protest with the opposite parties. The opposite parties served a notice dated 2. 8. 2001 for depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000, which was followed by another letter dated 30. 8. 2001. Challenging the legality of the above stated notices and the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000 claimed by the opposite parties as compounding fee as alleged, the complainant filed the present complaint terming the order dated 10. 9. 1999 being illegal, null and void and not binding upon him. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. While justifying the demand made and the order passed, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. In addition, the additional plea of estoppel and non-maintainability of the complaint were also raised. On the basis of the above stated respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions in its order dated 15. 11. 2002 noticed above. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties have been heard at length. None has chosen to appear to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent-complainant.

At the threshold of arguments it has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties that the District Forum had not adverted to the admitted position on record because it was specifically stated in the complaint by the complainant that against the order of penalty amount of Rs. 50,000, appeal had been filed by the complainant to the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad which stood dismissed and for that reason the complainant had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum and on that account the complaint being not maintainable was liable to be dismissed. It was also pointed out by him that thereafter he had also preferred a revision before the Commissioner, and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, which too was dismissed. The submission made, as such, cannot be faulted because it is clearly spelled out from the record that initially for the violation committed during the construction of the house by the complainant a compounding fee of Rs. 82,738 was calculated which was challenged by the complainant before the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad, who had reduced the compounding fee to Rs. 50,000. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to pay the said amount by the Estate Officer as per letter bearing memo No. 7203 dated 15. 10. 1999 within 15 days of the receipt of the letter so that the completion certificate could be issued to him. He had even challenged the said order of the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad in Revision Petition before the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, who while dismissing the revision observed as under: "from the perusal of the order dated 10. 8. 1999 it is clear that penalty has already been reduced from Rs. 82,738 to Rs. 50,000 by the Administrator. I find lenient view in favour of the petitioner has already been taken in this case. The petitioner has not appeared before me today despite issue of summons. In his petition he has not mentioned any ground on the basis of which further relief could be granted to him. In the given circumstances, I feel there is no need to interfere in the order of the Administrator. Consequently, I order dismissal of the revision petition. "

From the above stated circumstances it is clearly spelled out that the District Forum was duty bound to take into consideration that it could not act as a Revisional/appellate Authority against the order passed by the Competent Authority and on that account the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The position of law in this regard is well settled in case of 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 present 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. "

THE ratio of the above mentioned case would fully apply to the facts of the present case. As the District Forum has not taken into consideration the above stated factual position as well as the position of law, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, while accepting the appeal the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.