The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the complaint's limitation period and the voluntary surrender of the plot by the complainant due to financial constraints.

ORDER

R.S. Madan, President - Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.6.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby on the complaint of respondent-complainant following relief was granted:

"For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the respondents to allot the original plot bearing 2127 in Sector 18, HUDA Panipat to the petitioner if the said plot is lying still vacant and is not allotted to some other person and in the alternative if the said plot has been allotted to some other person then the respondents shall allot an alternative plot to the petitioner on the original terms and conditions of the same size, in the same sector as earlier allotted to the petitioner, and the petitioner shall be liable to pay remaining cost of the plot with interest and penalty. The respondents shall make the compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

2. The case set up before the District Forum was that a residential plot No. 2127 in Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat was allotted to the respondent-complainant vide allotment letter dated 29.7.1998. However, the said plot was surrendered by the complainant because he was not in a position to pay the enhanced price in respect of the above said plot and while accepting the request of the complainant he was refunded the deposited amount as per HUDA policy vide cheque dated 2.7. 2003.

3. By filing the present complaint before the District Forum the grievance made by the complainant was that he had surrendered the plot under the compelling circumstances because the HUDA authorities did not complete the development work in the area where the plot is situated. He sought restoration of the plot along with compensation and cost of litigation.

4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and resisted the claim of complainant. In the written statement they took the plea that the complainant had voluntarily surrendered the plot by submitting an application in writing, because he was facing some financial problem and the deposited amount by the complainant was refunded after deducting 10% of the tentative price as per HUDA policy vide cheque No. 1054862 dated 2.7.2003. It was further stated that the complainant had accepted the refund and the complaint filed on 4.1.2006 and as such the complaint was not maintainable being barred by time. Denying any kind of deficiency of service on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.

5. Both the parties tendered evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for appellant-opposite parties and perused the case file. None put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-complainant at the time of arguments.

7. At the very outset the following two questions require determination in this appeal:

(i) Whether the complaint before the District Forum was within limitation period of two years as required under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

(ii) Whether the complainant had surrendered the plot under the compelling circumstances due to non-completion of the development works in the area where the plot in question is situated

8. Admittedly, the complainant had accepted the refund of his deposited amount vide cheque No. 1054862 dated 2.7.2003 and the complaint before the District Forum was filed on 4.1.2006 i.e. after expiry of two years as required under the Act, 1986. There was no application from the side of the complainant before the District Forum for condonation of delay in filing complaint and as such in our view the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

9. Another question, which requires determination, is as to whether the surrender of the plot by the complainant was voluntaril