IMPORTANT POINT
District Forum cannot entertain time-barred complaint.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Aggrieved by order dated 29.4.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (short, “State Commission”) petitioner/complainant had filed the present revision.

2. Brief facts are that petitioner had applied for allotment of 325 sq.mtrs. plot in Sector 12-A Gurgaon vide his application dated 29.10.1981 accompanied with draft which was registered at Sr. No.2067.

3. The grievance of petitioner before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (short, “District Forum”) was that respondents/opposite parties did not tell him about the status of his application despite repeated visits to their office. Hence, respondents did not include his application while conducting draw of lots of Sector – 12-A, Gurgaon. When petitioner approached the respondents, he was assured that he would be allotted some other alternative plot. However, the same has not given to him nor the earnest money deposited by him was refunded. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, petitioner sought direction to the respondents to hand over possession of some alternative plot in Sector – 57, Gurgaon at the same rate at which he was to be allotted plot in Sector 12-A, Gurgaon. Further direction was sought to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till actual payment ; to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

4. Respondents in their written statement took preliminary objections that, petitioner is not a consumer and the complaint is barred by limitation. They further took the plea that District Forum, Faridabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the plot was applied at Gurgaon. On merits, respondents has stated that the petitioner remained un-successful in draw of lots held for allotment of plots in Sector 12-A, Gurgaon. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service on the part, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. District Forum, vide its order dated 5.9.2005, allowed the complaint and passed the following order ;

“1. The respondents are ordered to allot a plot of 325 sq.mtrs. to the complainant in Sector 12-A, Gurgaon, if any plot is lying un-allotted and vacant in this sector, on the similar price, which was fixed, when the applications were demanded in the year 1981 and the complainant has applied for the same. In the case, the area of the plot is found increased or decreased, the price of the same be also charged or to pay on the similar pattern.

2. The respondents are also ordered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount which was deposited by the complainant along with application to the respondents w.e.f. its deposit till the delivery of the plot now to be allotted to the complainant. This whole amount along with principle amount of Rs.5,817.50 to be adjusted towards the price of the plot now to be allotted to the complainant. It is, however, also ordered that in case any plot is not found un-allotted or vacant in Sector – 12A, Gurgaon, then allot an plot on the similar price to the complainant in any other developed sector Gurgaon.

3. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal. State Commission, allowed the appeal, vide its impugned order.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has filed this revision.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

9. The case of the petitioner is that the scheme for residential plot was advertised by the Respondent/Authority, Panchkula, but petitioner has collected the application form from Faridabad. As such, cause of action has arisen in Faridabad.

10. Other contention is that respondents have withheld the earnest money of the petitioner for several years, unt