NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2011
(From the order dated 5.4.2011 in Appeal No.1075/06 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
Sukhbir Singh
S/o Sh. Ami Chand
R/o House No.1922,
Sector - 8
Faridabad (Haryana) … Petitioner/Complainant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Faridabad,
Through its Estate Officer,
HUDA, Faridabad. … Respondent/Opposite party
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner
|
:
|
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate
|
PRONOUNCED ON 2nd November, 2012
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1075/06 – HUDA Vs. Sukhbir Singh by which while accepting appeal order dated 20.2.2006 passed by District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant was allotted plot No.1607-P, Sector 65, Faridabad by the opposite party vide allotment letter dated 29.10.2001. Complainant deposited Rs.27,110/- i.e. 10% of the tentative price of the plot with application on 29.12.2000 and thereafter deposited Rs.47,441/- i.e. 15% of the tentative price of the plot on 28.11.2001. The remaining price of the plot was to be paid in instalments. As the opposite party failed to develop the area and deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period to the complainant, the complainant moved application on 17.9.2002 to the opposite party for surrender of plot with prayer to refund the entire deposited amount. The opposite party accepted prayer of complainant, cancelled allotment of the plot and refunded Rs.24,504/- vide letter dated 10.3.2003 after deducting 10% of the total consideration, as per HUDA policy. After accepting refund, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that the plot was surrendered under compelling circumstances and requested that original plot or an alternate plot of the same size in the same sector may be allotted to him. Opposite party filed written statement and submitted that as the complainant had surrendered the plot voluntarily and requested refund, complainant is no more a consumer, hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to reallot the same plot or alternate plot of the same price along with interest etc. On appeal, learned State Commission vide impugned order while allowing appeal dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission passed the order without hearing petitioner, hence, order of State Commission may be set aside and order of District Forum may be confirmed.
5. Learned State Commission has observed in its order that –
“Respondent has been served but failed to appear either in person or through his agent/representative. Waited sufficiently. No request or intimation has been received so far. Hence, respondent is proceeded exparte”.
This observation clearly reveals that petitioner did not appear before the State Commission even after service and in such circumstances, impugned order was passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards different order sheets from the year 2006 to 11.2.2011. In the last order sheet dated 11.2.2011, learned State Commission observed as under :
“Service not effected. Fresh notice be issued to the respondent registered post for 5.4.2011 along with the documents relied upon by the appellant at own responsibility. In addition to this office is also directed to issue notice to the respondent for the date fixed. Till then stay is extended. Notice be givendasti as requested”.
It appears that after this order notices were sent to the petitioner by registered post and after service of notice petitioner did not appear before the State Commission and in such circumstances exparte order was passed which is in accordance with law.
6. As far merits of the case are concerned, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that the plot was surrendered by him and he received refund amount and after 5 months of receiving refund, complaint was filed before the District Forum for reallotment of plot. Learned State Commission has rightly placed reliance on judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court and judgement of the State Commission in HUDA Vs. Pashu Lal Nagpal – 2010 (1) CPC 277 wherein it was held that after surrendering plot and taking refund the complainant has no right to get the surrendered plot.
7. The State Commission has rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint as petitioner had already surrendered plot and received refund. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order and in such circumstances, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
8. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed without any order as to cost.
..………………Sd/-……………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
k
