The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and upheld the principle that voluntary surrender of a plot precludes the right to claim its restoration.

ORDER

R.S. Madan, President - This appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.11.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressaf Forum, Panipat whereby the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was accepted and following relief was granted:

" . . . . . . . . we accept the present complaint and direct the respondents to allot Plot No. 1488-P, Sector 24, HUDA, measuring 299 sq. meters, Panipat and if the said plot has been allotted to some other person then the OPs shall allot some alternative plot to the petitioner of the same size in the same sector or in some other developed sector and petitioner shall be liable to pay remaining cost of the plot with interest and penalty as per the rules of the HUDA. The respondents shall make the compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

2. The respondent-complainant was allotted a residential plot bearing No. l488-P in Sector 24, Urban Estate, Panipat vide allotment letter No. 4591 dated 24.7.2000. However, before the date of offer of possession the complainant surrendered the plot due to some financial constraints. HUDA authorities accepted the request of the complainant and refunded the deposited amount after deducting 10% of the tentative price of the plot as per HUDA policy.

3. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had surrendered the plot under the compelling circumstances because the opposite parties had not completed the development works in the area i.e. water and sewerage facilities were not completed where the plot is situated and rather the HUDA had raised demand of heavy enhancement in the price of the plot and also demanded possession interest. By filing complaint the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and sought direction to the opposite parties to restore possession of the plot in question; to adjust the deducted amount towards the price of the plot along with interest @ 12% per annum; to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 on account of harassment and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the preliminary objections it was stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was hopelessly barred by time because after acceptance of surrender of the plot of the complainant, the complainant had accepted the amount vide cheque dated 25.8.2003 whereas the present complaint was filed on 19.12.2005 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of two years as provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986).

5. It was further stated that the complainant had surrendered the plot of his own will because he was not in a position to pay the enhanced price of the land due to some financial constraints and as such 10% of the tentative price of the plot was rightly deducted from the deposits of the complainant as per HUDA policy. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as noticed in the opening Para of this order. Hence, this appeal.

7. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants-opposite parties and perused the case file. None appeared on behalf of respondent-complainant at the time of arguments.

At the very outset the following two questions requires determination in this appeal:

(i) Whether the complaint before the District Forum was within limitation period of two years as required under Section 24A 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. 1030652 dated 25.8.2003 and the complaint be