PURAN CHAND vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 05.07.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in appeal no. 2161 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short, ''the HUDA '') against the order dated 18.08.2006 of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short, ''the District Forum '').

THE petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation that he was compelled to surrender the plot allotted to him by the respondent in view of HUDA ''s failure to carry out the necessary development works. On the other hand, the HUDA pointed out that the complainant had voluntarily surrendered the plot under his letter dated 08.05.2003 and received the refund of Rs.1,80,723/- from the HUDA by cheque no. 1030653 dated 25.08.2003. There was no protest by the allottee/complainant. However, he filed a complaint on 14.09.2006 alleging that his surrender of the plot was not voluntary but due to the non-completion of necessary development works. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the following directions: "Direct the respondents to allot the original plot bearing 367 in sector 24 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 ".

ON consideration of the facts brought out in the appeal filed by the HUDA and the settled law on the subject, the State Commission held that the complaint was barred by limitation and also that the respondent/complainant had voluntarily surrendered the allotted plot on account of financial difficulties.

WE have heard Mr. Arvind Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the complainant ''s letter of 08.05.2003 and the other material on record, we find that the State Commission has correctly held that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation and that he had voluntarily applied for surrender of the allotted plot and receiving the refund in view of his inability to pay the balance instalments towards the cost of the plots. Thus, there is no reason for us to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission under the provisions of section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.