Subhash Sharma (Dr.) vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 711/2006, HUDA & Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that OP allotted a residential plot No. 2149 measuring 385 sq. yards in Sector 2, Palwal vide allotment letter dated 8.2.2000 to complainant for a tentative price of Rs. 4,99,522. As per terms of the allotment, complainant deposited Rs. 2,63,187 including the installment and enhanced price of the plot. Possession of the plot was offered to the complainant on 10.3.2003 after providing basic amenities. Complainant instead of taking possession of the plot moved an application dated 8.12.2003 to the OP showing his inability to pay the balance price of the plot and, thus, by surrendering the plot requested for refund of the deposited amount. OP accepted request and refunded amount after deducting 10% of the total consideration price of the plot as per surrender policy. Complainant after taking refund, filed complaint with the plea that complainant surrendered the plot under compelling circumstances because development work was not completed and offer of possession was only a paper possession. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint with a prayer to direct OP to hand over possession of the plot along with interest and compensation. OP contested complaint and submitted that after surrendering the plot and taking refund, complainant was no more consumer of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint against which, OP filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot was surrendered under compelling circumstances on account of not providing basic amenities in the area where allotted plot was situated and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that complainant/petitioner surrendered plot on account of financial constraints and he has nowhere stated in the surrender letter that he is surrendering the plot on account of non -development of the area. It is also an admitted fact that complainant has received surrendered value of the plot and only after that complaint has been filed. Learned State Commission has elaborately discussed all the aspects and has held that after surrendering plot and receiving refund of the deposited amount without any protest; complainant remains no more consumer of the OP. We do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner sought two adjournments to seek instructions whether he wants to pursue this petition or not and ultimately he submitted that as per instructions of the client, he is not withdrawing revision petition. This revision petition has been filed without any ground and wasted valuable time of the Commission. In such circumstances, revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Welfare Fund" as per Rule 10A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then he shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. List for compliance on 17.5.2013.