Back
2012(2) CPR 273 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
Smt. Jyoti Sharma —Petitioner
versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Through its Estate Officer, Rewari, Haryana & Ors. — Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3309 of 2011 alongwith I.A. No. 01 of 2011
Decided on 27.4.2012
Counsel fro the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.C. Dhanda, Advocate with Ms. Sagari Dhanda, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Time barred complaint cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 3 and 12—Alternative remedy—A litigant after availing departmental remedy, can file a consumer complaint also. (Para 12)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 3, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 24-A—HUDA Act, 1977—Section 17—Real estate—Allotment of plot—Resumption of plot by HUDA due to default in payment of instalments—Question of notice—Complaint dismissed by State Commission reversing order of District forum—If cheque of refund has been received by petitioner at her old address and same has been encashed by her, notices sent on her old address have also been received by her, as same were not received back by respondents—Besides, there was delay of seven years in challenging resumption order—Consumer complaint filed by petitioner before District Forum was hopelessly time barred in view of Section 24A—Complaint filed by petitioner before District Forum was hopelessly barred by limitation and same is also not maintainable on merits—Revision Petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000. (Paras 18 to 23 , 29 and 30)
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Aggrieved by order dated 5.7.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punchkula (for short as ‘State Commission’) petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘Act’).
2. Brief facts are that plot no.801, Sector-6, Part -1, Urban Estate, Dharuhera, was allotted to petitioner/complainant by respondents, vide allotment letter dated 27.1.1989. Petitioner had deposited 15% amount at the time of allotment on 24.2.1989. She also made payment of various instalments upto 18.10.1995, when physical possession was offered and given to her. Thereafter, petitioner failed to make payment of different instalments. Respondent no.1, vide order dated. 15.7.2002, resumed the plot.
3. Petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no.2, but her appeal was dismissed on 18.3.2010.
4. Thereafter, petitioner challenged the legality and validity of order dated 18.3.2010, before the Financial Commissioner, by way of revision, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 8.12.2011.
5. Petitioner thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing complaint seeking restoration of her plot.
6. District Forum, vide order dated 11.3.2011, allowed the complaint and passed the following order;
“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed. Impugned resumption order dated 15.7.2002 and order for rejection of appeal by the Administrator dated 18.3.2010, are hereby set aside. The allotment of the plot to the complainant is hereby allowed to be restored on payment/deposit of all the outstanding instalments with due interest upto the date of resumption dt. 15.2.2002 and from today till payment/deposit. No interest for the period from 15.2.2002 till today. The complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-.”
7. Order of District Forum was challenged by the respondents before the State Commission, which vide impugned order, accepted the appeal and observed;
“The question for consideration in this appeal is whether after availing opportunity of filing appeal before the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and revision before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, the complainant can be filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? The answer to this question is in negative.
It is well settled law that once the complainant has adopted a certain route for redressal of her grievance, then the complainant should go to the said route to its logical end. Reference in this regard is made to case law cited as Surinder Mohan v. Municipal Corporation and Anr.1 The relevant observation made in para No.6 of the above mentioned case is as under:-
“There is no doubt that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides additional remedy for redressal of grievance of a consumer. But it does not envisage and this Commission has not been supporting ‘forum-hopping’ by a consumer. If a certain route has been adopted, of their own volition, by a consumer, then he has to pursue his remedy to the end from that agency. In this case admittedly, the order of the cancellation and lack of amenities was agitated before the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh who dismissed the appeal. Revision Petition was filed against that order which also contained ‘relief’ with regard to lack of amenities, which has also been dismissed. This Commission is not a revisional appellate authority against the order passed by the Advisor to the Chief Administration, U.T. Chandigarh.”
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to SURINDER MOHAN’s case (supra). As the complainant has already availed the remedy of filing appeal before the Chief Administrator, HDUA, Panchkula and revision before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, the complaint filed by her cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act, because the Con
