NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2078 OF 2011
(From the order dated 31.03.2011 in Appeal No.183/2002 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
Mr. Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Tirlok Chand
R/o 52,53, CC-III,
Janta Bhawan Road,
Sirsa (Haryana) … Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Through: Estate Officer,
HUDA
Sirsa (Haryana) … Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON 12th SEPTEMBER, 2012
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 183/2002 – HUDA Vs. Suresh Kumar by which order passed by the District Forum dated 22.11.2001 was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased residential plot in auction bid on 27.1.1995 and paid 1/4th price of Rs.1,38,025/- on the same day, but in spite of repeated requests possession was not given to him even after expiry of 6 years from the date of auction. It was further alleged that on verification he came to know that dead sewerage line was passing underneath the plot hence requested for change of plot but OP-respondent remained negligent and deficient in removing encroachment and giving service. He further alleged that rest of the payment was to be made in 6 instalments from 27.4.1996 to 27.10.1998 along with interest but as possession was not handed over to him, instalments were not to be paid, but even then from time to time under protest he paid some amount. It was alleged that he may be awarded compensation along with interest on the deposited amount and OP-Respondent may be directed to remove encroachment and fix fresh instalments from the date of delivery of possession. OP-Respondent denied allegations of the complainant and further submitted that from time to time petitioner sought time for depositing instalments and he deposited some instalments in part and till today Rs.10,28,383/- are due with the petitioner upto 27.2.2001. It was denied that possession was not offered to complainant and further it was denied that any dead sewerage line was passing underneath the allotted plot and prayed that complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the OP to remove encroachments and handover possession to the complainant and further directed that OP would pay 12% interest on the deposited amount and further directed that remaining amount of the plot be paid in two bi-monthly instalments without any interest. OP challenged this order before the State Commission and learned State Commission by the impugned order set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint on the ground that complaint does not fall within the purview of consumer as plot was purchased in an open auction.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. It is an admitted case of the complainant that plot was purchased in auction on 27.1.1995 conducted by OP-respondent and petitioner-complainant deposited 25% money on the same day. Allotment letter was issued on 27.4.1995. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that possession of the site was to be offered on completion of development work in the area as mentioned in clause 6 of the allotment letter whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per endorsement on the allotment letter, sector was developed and complainant was directed to take the possession of the site after depositing 25% of the total cost. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this endorsement was made later on but this fact cannot be believed as nowhere the petitioner protested against this endorsement. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that sector in which plot was situated was not developed. As the petitioner purchased plot in open auction, petitioner does not fall within the purview of consumer in the light of judgment of the apex court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. – (2009) 4 SCC 660 and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing complaint on this sole count.
5. So far as the delivery of possession of the plot is concerned, respondent denied that possession was not offered to the complainant and reply filed by the respondent before the District Forum clearly reveals that from time to time complainant sought time for making payment of instalments and it appears that complainant himself delayed taking possession of the plot. Hence, there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
6. Plot was allotted on 27.1.1995. Petitioner/complainant deposited 25% price on the same day and was entitled to get possession on the very day but he filed this complaint on 31.10.2000 meaning thereby complaint has been filed after 5 years 9 months whereas complaint should have been filed within a period of 2 years, thus complaint being time barred is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not assail impugned order on any other count and in such circumstances, petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
.……………………………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
..……………………………
( SURESH CHANDRA )
MEMBER
k
