IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Subsequent purchaser - subsequent purchaser who takes over the obligation of the Original purchaser to pay the balance amount, would not per se excluded from the description of a Consumer and even in the absence of a privity of contract, a beneficiary of a Project/Service is a Consumer.
(2) Recurring cause of action - Thus, in the cases where possession of the allotted plot/flat has not been handed over to the Complainant there is always a recurring cause of action.

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Chief Administrator, Haryana Sahari Vikas Pradhikaran/Opposite Party in the Complaint before the District Forum (for short “the HSVP”) question the correctness and legality of the Order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 373 of 2021. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the HSVP against the Order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 322 of 2021. The District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by the Complainant has directed the HSVP to allot and give the physical possession of the Plot No. 316 of Sector 21 or Plot Nos. 277 or 278 of Sector 31 to the Complainant in lieu of the originally allotted Plot No. 87 of Sector 21 C III, Faridabad if lying vacant without litigation. The HSVP was also directed not to create a third party interest on the aforesaid plots and to further pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the respective dates of deposit till its realisation.

3. Factually, the Complainant was allotted a Residential Plot No. 87 in Sector 21 – C III, Faridabad admeasuring a total area of 469.50 Sq. Mtrs by HSVP vide Allotment Memo No. 635 dated 2.03.196 for a tentative price Rs.7,20,720/-. However, despite making the payment as per the demand made by the HSVP, they have failed to deliver the physical possession of allotted plot to the Complainant as promised. The Complainant sent various letters to the HSVP requesting possession of the Allotted Plot but the HSVP did not deliver the physical possession. The Complainant came to know that the Plot which was allotted to her was acquired under the Forest Area as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Complainant requested the HSVP either to allot the original Plot or exchange it with Plot No. 316 in Sector 21A or Plot Nos. 334 & 355 admeasuring 250 sq. Yards each in Sector 31, however, the said request was declined by the HSVP vide its letter dated 05.07.2021. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the HSVP to hand over the possession of Plot No.316, Sector 21A or Plot Nos. 334 & 335 in Sector, 31 Faridabad with compensation.

4. Upon notice on Complaint, though the HSVP put in appearance before the District Forum but did not choose to file its Written Version despite numbers of opportunities having been granted for the said purpose by the District Forum.

5. After due appreciation of the facts and the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that in terms of the exchange policy of the HUDA, the Complainant was entitled for an alternative plot in lieu of the originally allotted plot which was acquired under the “Forest Area” by an Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The District Forum held as under:—

“In this case, consumer complaint filed by the complainant with the prayer for the alternative plot which was allotted by the opposite parties – HUDA in the year 1996 to Sujana Ram which was duly transferred in the name of Darshna- consumer complainant in question . As per the order of Ld. Supreme Court of India, the land of the opposite parties were reserved for Forest and the allotment of the allottees were cancelled on the basis of Ld. Supreme Court and lot of allottees got the alternative plots in lieu of the cancelled plots by Ltd. Supreme Court. Opposite parties – HUDA were directed to allot the alternate plot to the complainant and there are 100 of plots in the Forest Scheme and such type of other cases were decided by the Hon’ble High Court in case titled Satish Sethi Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others in CWP No.11572 of 2015 decided on