IMPORTANT POINT
Unscrupulous litigants should not get any relief from Consumer Forum.

1. In this case, the attempt by an unscrupulous person in the guise of a ‘consumer complainant’ to garner a plot has been correctly set at naught by the order passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short) overruling the favour managed by the complainant from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (District Forum for short).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner/complainant had deposited/paid 25% of the cost being the earnest money for the allotment of a plot and had failed to pay any instalment whatsoever thereafter on the spacious plea that there was no development of the area. The allotment was made during the year 2002 and the respondent/OP/Huda stated that the development of the area was complete and the possession too was offered in the year 2004. Despite repeated notices, the petitioner failed to deposit the due instalments and in fact surrendered the plot and sought the refund of the deposited amount vide his two communications in November, 2002 and on 14th of May, 2003. In these communications, he had requested that the refund of the deposited amount be paid to his GPA Swadesh Kumar. It appears that the said GPA Swadesh Kumar instead of withdrawing the amount as expressed by the original allottee for his own selfish interest sought possession of the plot and that is how a complaint was filed before the District Forum, where the front man was the GPA Swadesh Kumar. The District Forum despite a plethora of objections raised by the respondent/OP/HUDA with regard to the maintainability of the complaint and without discussing the averments and pleas enumerated in their WS passed an order directing the respondent/OP/HUDA as under:-

“1. The respondents are ordered to deliver the physical possession of an alternative plot in any developed sector at the basic floating price of the sector to the complainant in lieu of plot No. 464 Sector-2 Faridabad. If the area of the alternative plot is found more or less, the price of the same be charged similar to that of the originally allotted plot.

2. The respondents are further ordered not to charge any kind of interest, penal interest penalty and extension fee uptill the period of delivery of the physical possession of the plot as ordered above.

3. The respondents are also ordered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the total deposited amount of the complainant w.e.f. its deposit till the delivery of the physical possession of the plot now to be allotted as per the aforesaid order.

4. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

3. It is strange that the District Forum ignored the factual position with regard to the non-payment of the premium by the complainant despite repeated notice and merely on his deposit of earnest money given reliefs stated above, which cannot but be said to be a bonanza.

4. When the order of the District Forum was challenged before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission). Vide the order impugned the State Commission has set aside the order passed by the District Forum observing as under :-

“Before parting with the judgment it would be appropriate to record an observation that this judgment has been rendered by Sh. J.P. Chaudhary the then President of the District Forum, Faridabad, who was known for deciding such cases for consideration. This Commission has already passed stricture against said J.P. Chaudhary in several surrender cases but could not take up action against him as he is no more the President of the District Forum, Faridabad. The stricture passed by this Commission against said J.P. Chaudhary in several surrender cases has been upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission by maintaining the order.”

5. This observation of the State Commission flows from the analysis of the facts and circumstances of the cas