ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 08.06.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 498 of 2016, wherein the appeal filed by the Appellant / Petitioner was dismissed and the Order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa (the “District Commission”) in CC No.202 of 2015 was partly allowed.

2. As per report of the registry there is a delay of 30 days in filing this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/17403/2017, the delay is condoned.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Mr. Prem Jindal is referred as the Complainant (Respondent herein) and Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA, is referred to as the Opposite Party / OP (Petitioner herein).

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he initiated proceedings against the Opposite Party (OP), alleging that the OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 offering freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave, Budhlada. He applied for a plot vide Application No. 2021, paying Rs. 3,00,000/- as earnest money to the OP. Following a draw of lots on 15.01.2013, the complainant was allotted a plot and subsequently issued a Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013. Pursuant to the scheme’s terms, he paid an additional 15% of the total amount via a DD of Rs.4,50,000/- dated 20.03.2013. However, the OP failed to commence development on the site or hand over possession within the stipulated period of 18 months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. Despite his requests and other allottees, the OP did not fulfil its obligations under the scheme, causing the complainant harassment, mental agony and humiliation. The OP’s actions constitute deficiency in service under the Act. He sought Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.1,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment.

5. In reply filed before the District Forum, the OP contended that as per Second Note on Page 7 of the Brochure, the plot in question as allotted to him on an “as is where is” basis through a draw of lots. As per term No. 25 of the Letter of Intent, any dispute is to be referred to the Chief Administrator, PUDA for resolution, thereby barring the jurisdiction of this Forum. The clauses pertaining to possession and ownership are explicitly outlined at Page 5 of the brochure and Para No. 12 of the Letter of Intent. The OP alleged that the complainant deliberately concealed material facts. He is estopped from filing the complaint due to their own acts and conduct. The case involves complex questions of facts and law that cannot be adjudicated summarily under the Act. The OP acknowledged that he deposited 15% of the basic sale price with them. The development work had already been awarded through tenders to M/s Avtar Singh Construction Company Pvt. Limited, Mohali. The complaint lacks a cause of action as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

6. The District Commission vide Order dated 17.05.2016, passed the following directions:-

“....... 18. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3,000/- as costs against the opposite party. Opposite party is directed to refund the amount received from the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of payment. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order”.

7. Being aggrieved by the District forum order, the OP filed Appeal No. 498 of 2016 and the Ld. State Commission vide order dated 08.06.2017 dismissed the Appeal and affirm the order passed by the District Commission, with the following findings /