ORDER

This revision has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 07.02.2011 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1194 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 09.11.2004 of the District Commission in complaint no. 139 of 1999.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent development authority.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 09.11.2004 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 07.02.2011 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. Brief chronology leading to the revision is that a plot admeasuring 813.73 sq. m. was originally allotted by the development authority to one Mr. Devinder Kumar vide allotment letter dated 07.02.1986 and a conveyance deed was executed. The said Mr. Devinder Kumar, the original allottee, sold the plot to one Mrs. Anila Goel, a subsequent purchaser, who is the complainant herein. Prior permission of the development authority was not taken. The complainant took possession of the subject plot and a sale-deed was executed on 26.06.1991. The complainant made a request to the development authority on 12.04.1995 to transfer the plot in her name. The development authority resumed the subject plot (as allotted to Mr. Devinder Kumar, the original allottee) on ground of non-construction vide letter dated 08.06.1998. Appeal preferred to the Administrator of the development authority by Mrs. Anila Goel, the subsequent purchaser, was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.1999. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission on 05.05.1999. The District Commission vide its Order dated 09.11.2004 quashed the resumption order passed by the development authority and directed it to transfer the subject plot in the name of the complainant after receiving the necessary transfer fee. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 07.02.2011 accepted the appeal of the development authority and set aside the Order of the District Commission and dismissed the complaint.

4. We note that in the concluding portion of its Order the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on ground that having earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the Administrator of the development authority by way of an appeal the complainant was “debarred from invoking the jurisdiction of the State Commission by filing the present case”.

The said extract from the State Commission’s Order is reproduced below:

“...... There is another aspect that property was resumed vide order dated 8.6.1998 after issuing the show cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing the allotee. Appeal preferred was dismissed vide order dated 20.4.1999 by administrator. Entertaining the complaint would certainly amount to sitting as a court of appeal over the statutory Appellate-Authority.

Having invoked the jurisdiction of the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon by way of appeal, the complainant is debarred from invoking the jurisdiction of the State Commission by filing the present complaint. The question in this regard has been settled in case Surinder Mohan Vs. Municipal Corporation and Anr. III (2006) CPJ 136(NC). The relevant observations made in para No. 6 of the above mentioned case are as under:-

There is no doubt that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides additional remedy for redressal of grievance of a consumer. But it does not envisage and this Commission has not been supporting ‘forum-hopping’ by a consumer. If a certain route has been adopted, of their own volition, by a consumer, then he has to pursue his remedy to the end from of amenities was agitated before the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh who dismissed the appeal. Revision Petition was filed against that order which also contained ‘relief’ with regard to lack of amenities, which has also been dismissed. This commission is not a revisional or appellate authority against the order passed by the Adv