IMPORTANT POINT
Reasoned order passed by State Commission cannot be interfered with.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant Society against the order dated 23.05.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2688 of 2004 – HUDA & Anr. v. Shiv Shakti Co-operative Group Housing Society by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Society was allotted one acre plot bearing No.GH-15 in Sector 21-C-III, Faridabad by OP/respondent. The complainant deposited the amount as and when demanded by the OP. Complainant wrote number of letters for handing over possession and ultimately, the complainant got letter dated 23.10.2000 for taking possession of the plot within two weeks. But, in fact, possession of the land was given to the complainant on 31.1.2001. It was further alleged that OP had not released permanent water connection and alleging deficiency on the part of the OP, filed complaint with the prayer to release permanent water connection, refund the interest already charged and not to charge extension fee and interest on instalments, etc. OP resisted claim and submitted that possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant after completing development work and prayed for dismisal of the complainant. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP/respondent to release permanent water connection immediately and provide all civic amenities and further directed to refund the interest already charged and not to charge extension fee and any type of interest and further directed OP to pay interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.5,000/- to each member of the complainant Society as damages. Respondent filed appeal before the learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the complaint as barred by time against which, revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for parties on I.A. No.909 of 2013 as well as on the revision petition at admission stage and perused record.

4. As far as I.A. No. 909 of 2013 is concerned, the petitioner moved application for seeking permission to place on record orders of District Forum in similar cases. Orders of District Forum passed in other complaints are not relevant for disposal of this revision petition and they cannot be taken on record; hence, I.A. No.909 of 2013 is dismissed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint as time barred because possession given without developing civic amenities cannot be regarded as lawful possession and, as civic amenities had not been provided till today, complaint is within limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as the petitioner has already taken possession on 31.1.2001 and complaint has been filed almost after 3 years, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint being barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6. It is admitted case of the complainant that in spite of number of letters by the complainant to the OP for handing over possession, possession of allotted plot was not given and after much persuasion, complainant got letter dated 23.10.2000 for taking possession of the plot within two weeks. It is admitted case of both the parties that possession of the plot was given to the complainant on 31.1.2001 and complaint has been filed on 9.1.2004, which is clearly time barred as per provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. If civic amenities had not been provided at the time of handing over possession, petitioner should have refused to take possession of