Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President, Dr. Rekha Sharma and Diwan Singh Chauhan, Members
HUDA AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
K.C. BHATIA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1026 of 2008
Decided on : 19-04-2010
Mr. Tarun Gupta for Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the Respondent
The complainant must be allotted a residential plot to be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and complaints must be filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.
Headnote:
Deficient Services - Allotment of Residential Plot - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24A
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was allotted an industrial plot and applied for a residential plot under a policy. The application was pending for several years, and the complainant filed a complaint seeking allotment of a residential plot and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the complaint was time-barred as it was filed after the stipulated period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The court also held that the correspondence between the parties did not constitute a recurring cause of action to extend the period of limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Whether the complaint was filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant was not a consumer as the allotment of a residential plot had not been made, and the complaint was time-barred as it was filed after the stipulated period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula vide which the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was accepted and following relief was granted:
"6. After taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold the OPs guilty of deficient services. Hence, the complaint is hereby accepted.
7. Now turning towards the relief clause, it may be noticed that the complainant has asked for issuance of formal letter of allotment of the entitled residential plot in favour of the complainant apart from compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for harassment and Rs. 11,000 as costs. After due consideration, we direct the OPs to issue allotment letter in favour of the complainant as per his entitlement after getting requisite approval from the competent authority within one month from the date of communication of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
2. The matrix of the facts involved in this appeal is given as under:
The complainant (appellant in this appeal) was allotted an industrial plot No. 142 in Phase-II, Panchkula vide allotment letter dated 29.11.1991 by the appellants-opposite parties. A policy dated 9.5.1990 was floated by Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as HUDA ) under which the complainant was entitled to a residential plot under N.R.I. quota for which he applied vide his application dated 12.2.1992 submitted to the Estate Officer, Industrial Assistance Group, 30 Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh. The application was forwarded by the said authority to the appellant-opposite parties vide letter dated 28.2.1992. Thus, the application of the complainant was processed for allotment of a residential plot to him in accordance with the provision of HUDA policy. Thereafter, the complainant wrote an application dated 28.4.1994 to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Mani Majra for allotment of a residential plot by considering his application dated 12.2.1992 sympathetically, but, kept mum thereafter to know about the fate of his aforesaid application till 21.1.2005 when he wrote the letter dated 21.1.2005 followed by letters dated 19.5.2005 and 21.12.2005
3. During this period, for taking further action in the matter, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula had written a letter dated 7.3.1995 to the Director of Industries, Haryana 30 Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh to know about the setting up of unit by the complainant on plot No. 142, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula or to apprise the competent authority whether the production in the unit was started or not so that action could be taken on his application for allotment of a residential plot. At that time the complainant was in Kuwait and during this period he applied for change in trade of the industrial plot, for which the complainant was issued a resumption notice. However, the complainant got necessary permission for change of trade and the resumption proceedings in respect of his industrial plot were dropped. The application of the complainant for allotment of a residential plot under the policy was in process and he was to be allotted residential plot only after he commenced commercial production making him eligible for allotment of the plot under the policy. Vide letter dated 18.4.2006 the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula informed the complainant to send immediately the information about the completion of construction of building on plot No. 142, Phase-II, Panchkula and also that when the production was started by him. In reply to that letter, the complainant wrote letter dated 18.4.2006 informing the opposite parties that he had established an export firm for Handicrafs under the name and style of 'sneh International which was earlier established in House
