Sohan Singh Bhullar vs Estate Officer Punjab Urban Planning And Development Authority

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 855/2006 - Sohan Singh Bhullar Vs. The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted Plot No. 484, Phase IX, SAS Nagar. Due to certain reasons, complainant could not construct the house upon the plot and complainant deposited extension fee as per paragraph 4 of the complaint totalling Rs.1,67,207/-. There was no provision for charging non-construction fee and complainant served notice to OP on 8.3.2004, but OP refused to refund money by letter dated 9.6.2004. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP filed written statement and submitted that claim is time barred, as extension fee was deposited from 1989 till 2003. He further submitted that plot has already been sold by complainant and now complainant no more falls within the purview of consumer and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order partly allowed appeal and directed OP to refund Rs.51,975/- deposited on 16.6.03 with 9% p.a. interest against which, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Heard petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record.

PETITIONER has also filed application for condonation of delay of 32 days. As per office report, there is delay of 72 days. Petitioner submitted that he went to USA and forgot to file revision petition. As per application, petitioner went to USA in the last week of November and returned back on 31.1.2012, but this revision petition has been filed on 28.3.2012. In the interest of justice, we condone delay in filing revision petition for the reasons mentioned in application.

PETITIONER submitted that limitation is to be counted from the date of refusal from refunding the amount and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint being barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be admitted. Perusal of complaint clearly reveals that petitioner deposited extension fee from 1989 to 2003. Complaint was filed in the year 2005. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint in respect of refund of amount deposited upto 2001. Petitioner submitted that limitation should be reckoned from the date of refusal to refund the amount, i.e. 9.6.2004. This argument is devoid of force and learned State Commission has elaborately dealt this aspect and rejected this contention in the light of Hon ''ble Apex Court and National Commission ''s judgements.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.