Ramesh Kumar vs HUDA and Anr.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, "the State Commission), in First Appeal No, 1752 of 2009 - Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Ramesh Kumar, by which appeal was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner had applied for allotment of plot of six Marias under Haryana Government Employees Quota vide application No. 1928 and deposited 10% earnest money to the extent of Rs. 35,910. In the draw of lots held on 10.3.2004 the complainant was found successful for allotment of six Marias plot No. 1989. However, before issuance of allotment letter, the complainant moved an application dated 14.5.2004 requesting for refund of 10% earnest money without disclosing any reason for doing so. Acceding the request of the complainant, the earnest money was refunded to the complainant vide cheque dated 28.7.2004 and accordingly the allotment of plot in favour of complainant was cancelled. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application on 13.1.2005 to the opposite parties/respondents for re-allotment of the plot on the ground that he was not aware about the allotment of plot in his name but the application of the complainant was rejected on 8,2.2005. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite parties resisted complaint and submitted that complainant was found successful in the draw of lots for allotment of six Maras plot bearing No. 1989-B but before the letter of allotment could be issued to him, he moved application dated 14.5.2004 requesting for the refund of 10% earnest money without disclosing any reason for doing so and acceding to his request, the amount deposited by him was released to him vide cheque dated 28.7.2004 and the rough allotment letter prepared by the office in favour of the complainant was cancelled. It was further pleaded that on 13.1.2005 the complainant submitted an application requesting for re-allotment of the plot but that was rejected on 8.2.2005 on the ground that the complainant had already received refund of his earnest money at his own request and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to issue allotment letter in respect of plot No. 1989-B or alternative plot on receiving earnest money and amount of instalments with interest and was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as damages to the complainant. Appeal filed by the opposite parties was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint on account of wrong information supplied by officers of opposite party but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law based on proper appreciation of facts, hence revision petition be dismissed. 5. It is not disputed that complainant applied for allotment of plot and deposited earnest money. It is also not disputed that before issuance of any allotment letter complainant moved application dated 14.5.2004 for refund of money. It is also not disputed that opposite party refunded earnest money to the complainant vide cheque dated 28.7.2004. 6. Perusal of record reveals that subsequently complainant vide letter dated 13.1.2005, 29.1.2005, 15.3.2005, 18.1.2006, 7.3.2006 requested opposite party to allot him plot as he came to know that plot was allotted to him in the draw of plots. Learned State Commission rightly observed that after getting back earnest money with consent, complainants ceased to be a consumer of opposite party and rightly allowed appeal as there was no question of re-allotment of plot once complainant voluntarily requested for refund of money, which was accepted by opposite party, refunded money and complainant received aforesaid amount. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of wrong information supplied by officers of opposite party complainant was under a wrong impression and requested for refund of money and when he came to know about the fact of allotment, he rightly requested for allotment of plot, In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on judgement of Hon''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1597 of 1972, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1978 (SLT Soft) 391, in which in Para 6 it was observed that act of complainant must be an intentional act with knowledge. I agree with h the law laid down in the aforesaid case but aforesaid case is not applicable to the fact of present case as in the case in hand complainant has not mentioned in any of the letters for re-allotment that he was supplied wrong information by officers of opposite party and in such circumstances it can very well be inferred that he was not willing to take allotment so he submitted application for withdrawal which was allowed by opposite party. 8. In the light of aforesaid discussion I do not find any legality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.