Umesh Saini vs Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority Office

THE RP/Complainant, Umesh Saini, is the son of Smt. Ram Dulari Saini, who was allotted a plot in Panchkula by the Respondent/Opposite Party HUDA and was asked to take its possession through their letter of 07.02.2001. She deposited the full price but did not take possession on the ground that it was too close to the adjoining seasonal drain (Choe). In 2003 the plot was re-allotted in their name. In 2005, without taking possession of the plot, the RP/Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, seeking damages of Rs.16.42 lakhs and allotment of an alternative plot. THE District Forum came to a conclusion that there was no deficiency in service. More importantly, the District Forum also held that since the possession was offered to Revision Petitioner/Complainant on 07.02.2001, he was required to invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum within two years from that date. THErefore, the Complaint was held to be barred by limitation. THE appeal, against this order of the District Forum Panchkula, was dismissed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the observation that it was devoid of any merit. THE Complainant has now filed this Revision Petition before this Commission.

THE main ground raised in the Revision Petition is that it is a case of continuous cause of action as, in his own words, ''the Courts below erred in ignoring the fact that preferential allotment was made on 07.02.2001 which was accepted but upon inspection of site petitioner immediately raised objection and requested for change of plot despite various representations/letters. THE Respondent did neither considered nor rejected the representations therefore, it cannot be said that limitation for filing the complaint starts from date of the allotment i.e. 07.02.2001. After perusal of the records and hearing the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, we are of the view that there is no substance in the above argument. The limitation period was correctly computed from 07.02.2001. Under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the limit of two years was far exceeded, with reference to the date of 07.02.2001. No application was made, as per the District Forum, to condone this long delay. Therefore, we hold that the period of limitation has been correctly applied by the fora below. In addition both the fora below had also considered the case of the petitioner on merits and rejected the same by giving sound and valid reasons which does not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Act, as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.