Back
2011(4) CPR 398 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
S.K. Naik, Presiding Member
Atul Gupta C/o M/s Vikar Trading
Company —Petitioner
versus
Haryana Urban Development
Authority Through its Chief
Administrator & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2741 of 2011
Decided on 11.10.2011
For the Petitioner:Mr. Puneet Bali, & Mr. Akshat Goel, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer fora cannot sit on judgment after consumer has adopted some route on his own free will to get relief from another competent forum.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19, 21 and 24A—Real estate—Allotment of industrial plot—Cancellation of provisional allotment of plot—Complaint dismissed by State Commission—Complaint before District Forum was hopelessly barred by time and should not have been entertained—Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint, which has been filed after two years from date of accrual of cause of action—Besides , consumer fora cannot sit on judgment after a consumer has adopted some route on his own free will to get relief from another competent forum— Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 17 to 20)
(ii) Civil Procedure Code , 1908—Order XLI Rule 17(1)—Hearing of appeal—Order XLI, Rule 17(1) CPC is not applicable to summary proceedings in Consumer Protection Act—Since both parties were absent it has caused no prejudice to either of them—Rule 17(1) is applicable only in respect of dismissal of appeal in absence of appellant. (Para 19)
S.K. Naik, Presiding Member—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 31st of May, 2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short) passed in First Appeal No. 317 of 2005. Vide the said order, the State Commission has set aside the order dated 11th of January, 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (District Forum for short), resulting in the dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner.
3. Facts leading to the order passed by the State Commission are as under :-
The petitioner was provisionally allotted an industrial plot in Sector-59, Faridabad by the respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA for short) vide their letter dated 23rd of April, 1996. The provisional letter of allotment, which is at pages 63 to 65 of the paper-book, contains a number of conditions, to be fulfilled before the issuance of a regular/final letter of allotment. The provisional letter of allotment, inter alia, stated as under :-
“6. It is also made clear that this letter will not give you a legal right for allotment unless the final letter of allotment is issued.
7. That you will make adequate arrangements for Industrial vestage (wastage) and disposal of effluent. The necessary certificates with respect of satisfactory arrangements after getting it checked from water/air pollution board be submitted.
8. That the price of the plot in question is tentative and any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under land Acquisition Act shall be payable proportionately as determined by the Authority. The additional price shall be paid within thirty days of the demand.
`9. You would submit the proof of the completion of above formalities within a period of 180 days from the date if issue of PLA. In case you fail to complete the above formalities with the above mentioned period, the offer shall stand withdrawn/cancelled and the amount deposited by you, will be refunded after deducting 10% from it.”
4. On failure on the part of the petitioner/complainant to comply with the conditions so stipulated within the prescribed period of 180 days, the provisional letter of allotment was cancelled as per HUDA policy on the 27th of November, 1996. The cancellation order was challenged by the petitioner/complainant in an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, which, however, was dismissed by the Administrator on the 16th of April, 1998. Rather than challenging the order passed by the Administrator, HUDA before the competent authority i.e. the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, the petitioner/complainant appears to have kept quiet for a number of years and filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum on the 4th of August, 2003. After hearing the parties, the District Forum vide the order referred to above accepted the complaint and directed the respondent-HUDA to confirm the provisional letter of allotment regarding the industrial plot in favour of the complainant and deliver the possession thereof, besides awarding a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2000/-. The order was required to be complied with within 30 days after its receipt.
5. Aggrieved upon the said order of the District Forum, the opposite party/HUDA filed an appeal before the State Commission on the 23rd of February, 2005. It appears from the records that both the appellants (opposite parties) and the respondent (complainant) were duly represented before the State Commission over a number of hearings spread over a number of years since 2005. In fact the petitioner/complainant had filed an application before this Commission (NCDRC) for the transfer of the appeal from the board of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to some other Commission, which was dismissed with cost by the National Commission vide order dated 13th of May, 2011. In this backg
