NIRMALA GOYAL vs Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority

CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 18.1.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh setting aside the order dated 15.5.2001 of a District Forum relegating the petitioner to Civil Court and dismissing the complaint.

IN July, 1994, the petitioner/complainant had applied for allotment of a LIG flat under hire-purchase scheme at Bhatinda. By the letter dated 30.12.1994, the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, respondent/opposite party intimated the petitioner of the allocation of a flat in that category at a price of Rs. 1,25,000. 10% of this amount was deposited by the petitioner. By the letter dated 24.9.1997, petitioner was intimated of the allotment of flat No. 1081 by the respondent at a price of Rs. 1,67,800. Clause Nos. 4 and 5 of the allotment letter which are material, read as under: "4. IN case you accept this allotment, you should send your acceptance by registered post along with amount of balance of twenty-five per cent of price within sixty days from the date of receipt of allotment letter.

IN case you refused to accept the allotment, your refusal letter should reach this office within thirty days from the date of receipt of this letter and in such a case, amount deposited shall be refunded after forfeiting an amount equal to ten per cent of the amount of deposit. If, however, such a refusal does not reach this office within the above said period, the amount deposited shall be forfeited in whole and the allotment shall stand cancelled and in that case you will have no claim for damages."

Petitioner alleged that as she was not in a position to pay the enhanced price of the allotted flat, she sent a letter dated 10.10.1997 under certificate of posting to the respondent-Authority to refund the deposited amount. She, further, alleged that she received a letter dated 7.1.1998 from the respondent informing her that the entire deposited amount was forfeited vide order dated 4.1.1998 as per Clause No. 5 of the allotment letter. Petitioner filed complaint seeking refund of the deposited amount along with certain other reliefs which was contested by the respondent. It was denied that any letter dated 10.10.1997 from the petitioner was received by the respondent. It was stated that the appeal filed against the forfeiture of amount was dismissed by the Additional Chief Administrator vide order dated 21.1.1999.

We have heard Mr. J.P. Gupta for the petitioner on admission.

AS rightly pointed out by the State Commission, the controversy between the parties revolves around the receipt of the petitioner''s letter dated 10.10.1997 allegedly sent under certificate of posting by the respondent. In the order under challenge the State Commission has recorded cogent reasons in reaching the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that the letter dated 10.10.1997 was received by the respondent. Therefore, under Clause No. 5, the respondent had rightly forfeited the deposited amount. That apart, admittedly the petitioner against the order of forfeiture of deposited amount had filed statutory appeal before the Additional Chief Administrator which was dismissed vide order dated 21.1.1999. In para No. 6 of the complaint, the petitioner has alleged that the order dated 21.1.1999 is illegal. In our view, validity of the order dated 21.1.1999 cannot be examined by the Consumer Fora and the remedy open against that order was to have filed a writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by the petitioner. Complaint itself was, thus, not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act).

FOR both the reasons, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. R.P. dismissed.