S.K. Naik, Presiding Member— This revision petition has been filed by Mr. Kehar Singh, who was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (District Forum for short), assailing the order dated 27th of January, 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short). Vide the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant on the ground of limitation as well as on merit.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant had applied for allotment of a residential plot in Sector-12A, Gurgaon, whereupon he was allotted plot no. 382-B in the said sector at Gurgaon. The petitioner/complainant alleges that despite his depositing Rs.75,786/- being the cost of the plot, the respondent/opposite parties did not offer him possession of the said plot but allotted an alternate plot bearing number 587-P in Sector-15, Gurgaon. The petitioner/complainant also deposited the differential cost of Rs.1,92,066/-, on the basis of which on 19th of October, 1995 he was delivered possession by the respondent/opposite parties. In the year 2001 the respondent/opposite parties issued a demand notice to the petitioner/complainant seeking some more money and he deposited a sum of Rs.3,52,463/- under protest and also filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of the said amount with interest, compensation and cost of litigation.

3. Before the District Forum both the parties placed their respective cases. While the petitioner/complainant advanced the arguments as indicated above, the respondent/opposite parties stated that the possession of the earlier allotted plot could not be delivered since the petitioner/complainant did not accept the same and approached the Hon’ble High Court praying for allotment of plot no. 587-P, Sector-15, Part-I, Gurgaon at the prevalent rate, which was allotted to him at the rate of Rs.635.62 ps. per sq. mt. and possession was delivered. The petitioner/complainant has willfully accepted the possession of plot no. 587-P and therefore there was no deficiency in service.

4. The District Forum after considering the rival submission vide its order dated 12th of June, 2007 disposed of the matter and directed the respondent/opposite parties to calculate the account of the complainant and refund the excess amount, if any, arrived at after calculation of the account with interest to him at the rate of interest which they charge on delayed payments from the date of deposit till actual payment.

5. Not satisfied with the order of District Forum, the petitioner/complainant approached the State Commission, who did not find any force in his appeal and dismissed the same on the ground of limitation as well as on merit.

6. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/complainant.

7. Since the challenge was to the order of the State Commission dismissing his appeal on ground of limitation as also on merit, learned counsel on the point of limitation has submitted that the reason given for the delay in filing the appeal in his condonation application provided sufficient cause, as firstly the counsel for the complainant never informed him about the decision of the complaint before the District Forum and subsequently he was admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali and angioplasty was conducted on him and the doctor had advised him bed rest for some days. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji.1

8. On the merits of the case, learned counsel submits that the order of District Forum directing the opposite party to calculate the amount due to the complainant and find out if any excess amount has been charged from him and if so to refund the excess amount with interest, to say the least, is not a proper order. According to learned counsel, the Distr