AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE two revision petitions, Revision Petition No. 282 of 2011 and Revision Petition No. 283 of 2011, have been filed by Smt. Manju Sundra and Smt. Ritu Dass respectively through their power of attorney holders, seeking to challenge two identical orders both dated 13th of October, 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission). By these orders, the State Commission has accepted the appeals filed by the respondent/opposite party/Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and set aside the two orders, both dated 12th of September, 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short the District Forum), thereby dismissing the complaints. The petitioners are aggrieved that the State Commission vide the orders impugned has set at naught their reliefs granted by the District Forum directing the respondent/opposite party/HUDA to re-allot the surrendered plot, besides other reliefs. Since the facts, circumstances and allegations of both the petitioners/complainants are identical and even the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are identical, we proceed to dispose of these revision petitions by this single common order.
FACTS of the cases are that Smt. Manju Sundra (petitioner in R.P. No. 282 of 2011) was allotted plot no. 32 in Sector 21-D, Faridabad on 9th of June, 1994 and Smt. Ritu Dass (petitioner in R.P. No. 283 of 2011) was allotted plot no. 48 in Sector 21-D, Faridabad on 28th of May, 1996 by the respondent/opposite party/HUDA. After depositing the earnest money to the tune of 25% of the tentative price of the said plots, they deposited few installments and vide their letters dated 31st of July, 2002 and 13th of August, 2002 respectively surrendered the plots and requested for the refund of their deposits. These letters being relevant for the proper adjudication of the matter are reproduced as under :- Letter written on behalf of Smt. Manju Sundra : To The Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. Sub:- Surrender of Plot No. 32, Sector 21D, Faridabad. Sir, It is submitted that I am the true legal GPA of Smt. Manju Sundra. Due to some unavoidable circumstances I am unable to pay the pending dues of HUDA, and I surrender the said plot No. 32, Sector 21D, Faridabad. I, therefore, request to please refund my deposit amount to Sh. Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. S. Chand. Original G.P.A. is attached herewith. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Ashok Kumar) Dt. 31.7.02 GPA of Smt. Manju Sundra. Letter written by Smt. Ritu Dass : To The Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. Sub:- Plot No. 48, Sectot-21D, Faridabad. Sir, Due to some unavoidable circumstances I am unable to pay the pending dues of HUDA, as such I surrender my above said plot and refund of this plot be made to my G.P.A. Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Asha Nand. Original allotment letter, receipts & G.P.A. is attached herewith. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- ( Ritu Dass ) Dt. 13/8/02. As is evident from these letters, both the petitioners expressed their inability to pay the pending dues and, therefore, surrendered the plots with a request to refund the deposited amounts. The respondent/opposite party/HUDA on the basis of their request after deducting 10% as per their policy/rules refunded the amount in the case of Smt. Manju Sundra on the 2nd of August, 2002 and in the case of Smt. Ritu Dass on the 10th of September, 2002. However, both the petitioners filed consumer complaints before the District Forum on 15th of June, 2005, seeking re-allotment of the plots in question without charging any penalty or interest, besides many other reliefs on the ground that the respondent/opposite party/HUDA had failed to develop the plots and hand over the possession thereof. According to them, the request to refund the deposited amount was made, as the respondent/opposite party/HUDA was unable to develop the area and deliver the possession of the said plots in time. The District Forum not only directed the respondent/opposite party/HUDA to re-allot the same plot but granted the entire set of other reliefs sought for by the complainants, including a direction not to charge any kind of interest, penalty or extension fee from the complainants. Aggrieved with these directions of the District Forum that the respondent/opposite party/HUDA filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide the impugned orders set aside the orders of the District Forum, thereby dismissing the complaints. Aggrieved with these orders of the State Commission, dismissing their complaints, that both the petitioners have challenged the State Commissions order in these revision petitions.
We have heard Mr. Girijesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on admission. He has repeated the same grounds advanced before the State Commission that the petitioners had surrendered the plots and sought the refund of their deposited amounts under compelling circumstances, the circumstances being that the respondent/opposite party/HUDA had failed to develop the area around the plots and the petitioners had all the reasons to believe that they would not be offered the possession of the plots with complete amenities for a long period of time.
IN the other limb of his argument, learned counsel has submitted that in a identical case in SLP (Civil) No. 5140 of 2009 [Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Irish Print Services P. Ltd.] the Honble Supreme Court had directed that if the complainant deposits the price prevailing on the date of allotment of plot, the concerned authority of HUDA shall execute the necessary documents in favour of the complainant and contends that in view of the said judgment, the order passed by the District Forum was fully justified and the State Commission has erroneously set it aside. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel but find no justification for our interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) in the order of the State Commission, which is very well reasoned. The State Commission has rightly held that both these petitions were barred by limitation under Section 24B of the Act, as the petitioners themselves had surrendered the plots and accepted the refund during the year 2002 but had filed the complaints during the year 2005, much after two years of limitation provided under the Act. The letters written to the respondent/opposite party/HUDA do not refer to any discrepancy or shortcoming on part of the respondent/opposite party/HUDA with regard to the development of the area or the plots and the petitioners have not brought forward any correspondence/reference in the form of representation made to the authorities pointing out the exact nature of precise development which was not provided. It is a case of pure and simple afterthought as the cost of plots in the area over the years have appreciated manifold. While dealing with a very similar case, we have already taken a view and dismissed the revision petition in the case of Budhi Ram Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. [II (2011) CPJ 165 (NC)] while affirming the order passed by the State Commission and holding the order passed by the District Forum totally perverse. Insofar as reliance on the case of Irish Print Services P. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the facts cannot be said to be identical inasmuch as in the said case, there was an encroachment on the plot which the respondent/opposite party/HUDA had failed to remove and further it appears that the complainant had offered to pay the price of the plot at the rate of Rs.7894/- per square meter which appears to be the market price as against the original price of Rs.3375/- per square meter. It was in this background that a consent order was passed as would be evident from the order of Honble Apex Court. The case in hand is a case of surrender simpliciter and as has been correctly relied upon by the State Commission on the judgment of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. M/s Zuari Industries [2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 104 (DB)], wherein it has been held that an allottee having surrendered plot and taken refund has no right to get the return of the surrendered plot. The State Commission, in our view, has passed a very well reasoned, objective, fair, just and legal order. These revision petitions, accordingly, are dismissed at the stage of admission itself.