NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Krishan Lal – Petitioner
versus
HUDA and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.3148 of 2010
(Against the Order dated 11/05/2010 in Appeal No.569/2006 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 24.12.2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Once a plot has been surrendered and refund accepted, allottee did not have a right to seek return of plot.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Re-allotment of plot – Right to – Scope – Complainant-petitioner surrendered the plot allotted to him on 21.11.2000 and accepted refund of amount on 16.2.2001 – Cause of action accessed to him on 16.2.2001 ad complaint was to be filed within two years i.e. on or before 16.2.2003 – Thus, complaint was barred by time – Admittedly complainant surrendered the plot allotted to him on his own volition and ever received the refund amount with 10% deduction as per policy of opposite party – Thus, complainant was not a “consumer” qua the respondents – Petitioner did not have a right to seek return of surrendered plot – State Commission rightly noted that the allotment of alternative plot was made subject to final decision in the dispute – Interference with declined – Petition dismissed.

Held: The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that possession of the Plot as per the order of the District Forum ought not to have been cancelled by the State Commission. He further stated that the State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that equity between the parties have changed and the Petitioner already invested huge amount of money in the development of the alternative Plot allotted to him in compliance of the District Forum order. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents stated that since the Complainant had surrendered the plot allotted to him and also received the refund amount, there was no relation of “Consumer” and “Service provider” between the parties. On merits, Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that after completion of development works, the Complainant was handed over possession of the Plot. He, however, surrendered the Plot and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

First issue in this case is whether the Complaint filed before the District Forum was barred by limitation or not? Complainant surrendered the plot, vide application dated 21.11.2000 and accepted the refund amount on 16.02.2001. The cause of action accrued to the Complainant on 16.02.2001 while the Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 19.10.2005, after expiry of more than four years. The Complaint was to be filed within two years i.e. on or before 16.02.2003. In my view, the Complaint was barred by limitation and the District Forum should not have entertained the Complaint in the first instance.

Next issue is whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not? Admittedly the Complainant surrendered the plot allotted to him on his own volition and even received the refund. In such circumstances, the Complainant was no longer a ‘Consumer’ qua the Respondents. The Complainant stated that 10% deduction made by the Respondents was unlawful and the same amounted to deficiency in service. Deduction of 10% was made as per the Policy of the Opposite Party. Moreover the Complainant cannot raise objection at this belated stage. The State Commission, while relying on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Haryana Urban Development Authority v M/s Zuari Industries 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 104 (DB), has rightly held that once a plot has been surrendered and the refund accepted, the allottee did not have a right to seek return of the surrendered plot.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the Appeal before the State Commission, HUDA authorities allotted an alternative plot to the Complainant, vide letter dated 21.04.2008, subject to the decision of this case upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was submitted that by allotting an alternate plot, the Respondent had already complied with the order of the District Forum and, therefore, cannot challenge the order of the District Forum. In support of his submission, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of this Commission in Sudesh Gupta v. Huda RP No. 3448 of 2011 decided on 19.11.2020, wherein this Commission held that where the re-allotment of a plot in compliance with the District Forum order did not state that the re-allotment was subject to the decision of the State Commission in Appeal, there was no reason to cancel the re-allotment. The judgment relied by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is distinguishable as the facts in the present case are quite different. In Sudesh Gupta (supra) the issue related to transfer of the plot in accordance with the policy of the HUDA. In the present case the issue relates to re-allotment of the plot, after surrendering the same and accepting refund amount. The State Commission observed that the alternative plot was allotted to the Complainant “subject to the decision of this case upto the Hon’ble Apex Court.” It was also observed that “perusal of the file shows that at no stage request was ever made on behalf of the Appellants-Opposite parties to extend the stay order dated 23.03.2006. It discloses a clear picture of connivance between the Complainant and HUDA authorities to allot alternative plot to the Complainant causing huge financial loss to the State Exchequer.” The State Commission also stated that “the foundation of the impugned order is based on fraud and misrepresentation which on the face of record is absolutely illegal and therefore no question arises to alive such an order simply on the ground that the possession of the plot has already been delivered to the Complainant.” The Petitioner has not furnished any document to disprove the aforesaid observations of the State Commission. The State Commission had rightly noted that the allotment of the alternative Plot was made subject to the final decision in the dispute.

In view of the above, I find that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is a well reasoned order. State Commission made strict comments on the order passed by the District Forum, which are quoted in para 5 above. I see no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 7 to 12)

Result: Petition dismissed.