State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Haryana Urban Development ... vs Anil Sehgal Son Of Shri Chunni Lal Sehgal ... on 26 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.613 of 2012 Date of Institution: 16.05.2012 Date of Decision: 26.10.2012 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator. 2. The Administrator, HUDA, Sector-12, Faridabad. 3. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-12, Faridabad. Appellants (Ops) Versus Anil Sehgal son of Shri Chunni Lal Sehgal & Kiran Sehgal wife of Anil Sehgal, both residents of House No.5-B/67,NIT, Faridabad at present: 16-K Fruit Garden, NIT, Faridabad. Respondents (Complainants) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri A.K. Gehlawat, Advocate for appellants. Shri Sandeep Chabra, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faridabad whereby complaint bearing No.206/2008 filed by respondents (complainants) was accepted and following relief was granted:-
.the respondents are directed either to deliver the actual possession of the plot No.712, Sector-21B, Faridabad or in the alternative to allot and deliver possession of the some other plot in that sector and preferably plot No.747, Sector-21B, without asking for any more amount from the complainant.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the respondent-complainant Anil Sehgal was allotted a residential plot bearing No.712-P measuring 350 Sq. yards located in Sector 21-B, Faridabad under the Discretionary Quota by the appellants-opposite parties on a tentative cost of Rs.47,854.40 vide allotment letter dated 10.11.1992. Later on the allotment of the aforesaid plot was cancelled by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, the plot was restored by the Honble Supreme Court. Possession of the plot was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 21.05.2002 and reminder dated 21.6.2002 was also issued. Complainant Anil Sehgal submitted an application for adding the name of his wife as joint owner on 24.12.2002 which was allowed and intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 21.10.2003 for taking physical possession of the plot but the complainants did not turn up.
The grievance of the complainants before the District Forum was that the opposite parties did not deliver the possession of the plot to them. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein they denied any kind of deficiency in service and stated that the possession was offered to the complainants but they themselves did not turn up to take the possession. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
At the very outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainants do not fall within the definition of consumers in view of earlier decision rendered by this Commission in First Appeal No.675 of 2008 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority and another vs. Smt. Gunjam decided on 29.04.2011. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellants has produced the photo copy of the judgment before us.
Admittedly, the complainants were allotted plot out of the Discretionary Quota. Therefore, this case is fully covered by our earlier decision in Smt.Gunjams case (Supra) and thus the complainants do not fall within the definition of consumers.
Hence, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, in terms of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to avail remedy before the Court having competent jurisdiction, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 26.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member