Back
2011(4) CPR 327 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
Sumit Chaudhary —Petitioner
versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority Through its Chief Administrator
& Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 206 of 2011
Decided on 13.9.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
No one should be allowed to indulge in false and frivolous litigation.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 15, 17,19 and 21—Real estate—Surrender of plot—Refund—Deduction of 10% of consideration amount—Complaint dismissed by State Commission observing that complainant has surrendered plot of his free will and accepted refunded amount as per HUDA policy, therefore, he is not a Consumer of opposite parties—Petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered plot—It was unconditional surrender on part of petitioner—Since petitioner had already taken refund, as such on date of institution of complaint before District Forum he was not a consumer—State Commission rightly dismissed appeal of petitioner—Revision petition dismissed with punitive costs of Rs. 25,000. (Paras 10 to 15)
(ii) Administration of Justice—Frivolous litigation—Frivolous litigation clogs wheels of justice, making it difficult for courts to provide easy and speedy justice to genuine litigants—Strong message is required to be sent to those litigant who are in habit of challenging order of fora below even if same is based on sound reasoning—No one should be allowed to indulge in false and frivolous litigation. (Para 22)
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—By way of this revision there is challenge to order dated 14.10.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (for short ‘State Commission’). Vide impugned order, State Commission accepted the appeal of respondents, challenging order dated 16.01.2006, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short as ‘District Forum’).
2. Brief facts are that residential plot no. 1558 measuring 209 sq. meters in Sector-2, Palwal, was allotted to the petitioner by respondents, vide allotment letter dated 23.02.1998. Tentative price of the said plot was Rs. 3,23,741/- Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,40,944/-, being 25% of the total cost and installments with respondents. As per petitioner, respondents failed to develop the area and no basic facilities were provided. Petitioner approached the respondents and requested them to develop the area but respondents failed to do so. Thereafter, on 29.09.2003, petitioner submitted an application to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad seeking cancellation/surrender of plot and refund of his entire deposit. Considering the request of petitioner, Estate officer, HUDA cancelled the allotment of the above said plot and refunded an amount of Rs. 82,150/- to the petitioner, after deducting 10% of the total consideration and the same was accepted by the petitioner, without any protest.
3. It is alleged by petitioner that he has surrendered the plot under compelling circumstances as after depositing the tentative price of the plot in question, respondents failed to develop the area and also failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot in question due to which he was not in a position to raise construction over the plot. It is further alleged by the petitioner that respondents wrongly deducted 10% of the consideration amount since petitioner did not voluntarily surrendered the plot, rather it was a surrender of plot under compelling circumstances due to non-development of the area. Thus, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum and sought the following reliefs:-
a) To hand over the physical possession of the plot No. 902, Sector-2, Palwal or to allot an alternate plot of increased size or decreased size in the same sector.
b) To pay interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant on the amount deposited (deposited amount and deducted amount) from the date of deposit till actual refund.
c) To not charge the interest on installments, on delayed payment and on enhancement price and to not charge extension fee,
d) To pay the complainant forthwith damages of Rs. 50,000/- on account of deficient service, mental tension agony and harassment caused by the respondents due to their above deliberate deficient services and unfair trade practice towards the complainant consumer.
e) To pay a sum of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant as costs of the present complaint”.
4. Respondents in its written statement denied version of the petitioner and pleaded that possession of plot was offered to the petitioner, vide letter dated 09.12.2002. The possession of plot was offered to the petitioner after completing all the development works in the area such like road, sewerage, drinking water and electricity etc. Petitioner failed to make the payment of installments and in this regard show cause notice
dated 20.04.2002 was issued to the petitioner.
5. It is further alleged that enhanced compensation was demanded by the petitioner, vide letters dated 3.11.2000 and 4.4.2002. Respondents justified the amount refunded to the complainant after deducting 10% of the total consideration, in view of application submitted by petitioner on 29.09.2003. Respondents further resisted the claim of petitioner on the ground that once petitioner had surrendered the plot of his free will and accepted the refund without any protest, he is not a consumer of the respondents. Denying any kind
