National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Shiv Shakti Co-Operative Group ... vs Huda & Anr. on 20 March, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2011 (From the order dated 23.05.2011 in Appeal No. 2688/2004 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) The Shiv Shakti Co-operative Group Housing Society, G.H.-15, Sector 21-C/III, Faridabad 121 001 (Haryana) (Through its General Secretary) Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) (Through its Administrator) Having its office at: Sector-12, Faridabad Haryana Respondent-1/Opposite Party (OP) 2. The Estate Officer Haryana Urban Development Authority Having its office at: Sector-12, Faridabad Haryana Respondent-2/Opposite Party(OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr S.K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 20th March, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant Society against the order dated 23.05.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 2688 of 2004 HUDA & Anr. Vs. Shiv Shakti Co-operative Group Housing Society by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Society was allotted one acre plot bearing No.GH-15 in Sector 21-C-III, Faridabad by OP/respondent. The complainant deposited the amount as and when demanded by the OP. Complainant wrote number of letters for handing over possession and ultimately, the complainant got letter dated 23.10.2000 for taking possession of the plot within two weeks.
But, in fact, possession of the land was given to the complainant on 31.1.2001. It was further alleged that OP had not released permanent water connection and alleging deficiency on the part of the OP, filed complaint with the prayer to release permanent water connection, refund the interest already charged and not to charge extension fee and interest on instalments, etc. OP resisted claim and submitted that possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant after completing development work and prayed for dismisal of the complainant. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP/respondent to release permanent water connection immediately and provide all civic amenities and further directed to refund the interest already charged and not to charge extension fee and any type of interest and further directed OP to pay interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.5,000/- to each member of the complainant Society as damages. Respondent filed appeal before the learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the complaint as barred by time against which, revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for parties on I.A. No.909 of 2013 as well as on the revision petition at admission stage and perused record.
4. As far as I.A. No. 909 of 2013 is concerned, the petitioner moved application for seeking permission to place on record orders of District Forum in similar cases. Orders of District Forum passed in other complaints are not relevant for disposal of this revision petition and they cannot be taken on record; hence, I.A. No.909 of 2013 is dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint as time barred because possession given without developing civic amenities cannot be regarded as lawful possession and, as civic amenities had not been provided till today, complaint is within limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as the petitioner has already taken possession on 31.1.2001 and complaint has been filed almost after 3 years, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint being barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
6. It is admitted case of the complainant that in spite of number of letters by the complainant to the OP for handing over possession, possession of allotted plot was not given and after much persuasion, complainant got letter dated 23.10.2000 for taking possession of the plot within two weeks. It is admitted case of both the parties that possession of the plot was given to the complainant on 31.1.2001 and complaint has been filed on 9.1.2004, which is clearly time barred as per provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. If civic amenities had not been provided at the time of handing over possession, petitioner should have refused to take possession of plot. Learned State Commission has rightly referred judgement of Honble Apex Court rendered in V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (SC) (CP) and has rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2000 (2) PLJ - Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Smt. Shashi Bansal (Smt.) & Ors. delivered by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in which, it was held that offer of possession cannot be made without development work. This citation does not help the petitioner, as in this case, possession was offered on 23.10.2000 and possession was taken on 31.1.2001 and after almost 3 years, complaint was filed. If civic amenities were not available, complainant should not have taken possession of plot and once the complainant had taken possession of the land, he must have filed complaint within a period of two years from taking possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on judgment delivered by this Commission in F.A. No. 207 of 1998 M/s. Bhushan Kulkarni & Associates Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Prakash Salshiv Deshmukh & Ors. in which it was held that even by consent order, possession of flat could not have been given without issuance of completion and occupancy certificate by the authorities. This citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as in the present case possession of land for raising construction was given.
7. Thus, it becomes clear that impugned order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
8. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k