ORDER

The Revision Petition Nos.1066 & 1067 of 2011 were filed by the Applicants/Complainants challenging the Order dated 21.01.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal Nos. 164 & 165 of 2008, whereby the Orders passed the District Forum allowing the Complaints were set aside and Appeals filed by the Opposite Party/Non-Applicant, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, the HUDA) were allowed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mr. Jora Ram Bishnoi, the Complainant in RP No. 1066 / 2011, (hereinafter ‘Complainant’), had applied for allotment of 8 marla plot under the ‘Discretionary Quota’ (hereinafter ‘DQ’) in 1986 depositing Rs.3,883/- as earnest money. Following a change of the Government, all allotments under this DQ were cancelled. The allottees of the DQ filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana titled “S.R. Dass Vs. State of Haryana”. The writ was successful and the Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders of cancellation of plots under DQ in 1988. SLP by the Government of Haryana before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. Following this, the Non-Applicant/Opposite Parties - HUDA (hereinafter referred to as the Non-Applicant), vide Memo No. A-22-DQ-768/81 1690 dated 09.04.1991, offered allotment of Plot No. 768 in Sector-22, Gurgaon under the DQ to the Complainant, and asked him to deposit Rs.32,609.10, in order that with Rs.3,883/- that had already been deposited earlier in 1986, the Complainants would have deposited 25% of the tentative price of the plot. The Complainant, however, failed to deposit this amount. Therefore, the Non-Applicant cancelled the plot and refunded the amount of Rs.3,883/- deposited by the Complainants vide cheque No. 556526 dated 01.09.1997.

3. The case of the Complainant was that as per various policies and following judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Non-Applicant had refunded the amount taken for plots to various allottees; however, subsequently Non-Applicant had also issued notice to them for reviving their allotment and re-depositing the amounts required. This facility had not been extended to the complainants despite repeated requests, and this was the deficiency in service which had caused the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

4. The Consumer Complaint before the District Forum was resisted by the Non-Applicant on two grounds: (i) the complaint was hopelessly time barred as the amount of Rs.3,883/- had been returned to the Complainant vide cheque dated 01.09.1997 and the complaint was filed in 2007 i.e. after nearly a decade; (ii) complainant had not deposited the amount asked of him vide memo dated 9.4.1991 within the stipulated period. Therefore, the Non-Applicant had pleaded that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

5. The District Forum, after hearing the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record, had allowed the complaint and directed the Non-Applicant to allot plot No. 768/22, in Gurgaon, on the same price and on the same terms and conditions on which the original allotment had been made, adjusting the amount of earnest money in the accounts of the complainants as also pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

6. On appeal, the Non-Applicant succeeded: the State Commission set aside the impugned order of the District Forum. It first considered the aspect of limitation in filing of the consumer complaint: noting that the period of delay was much beyond the two years prescribed under sec 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (CPA), and that no application seeking condonation of delay had been filed either, it held that the consumer complaint was, to begin with, not entertainable by the District Forum. The State Commission, further, went on to also consider whether the Complainant could be called a ‘consumer’ in the first instance as he wa