Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant applied for an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. mt. and deposited a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- as the price of the industrial plot with petitioner/opposite party. Opposite party allotted plot of 600 sq. mt. instead of 500 sq. mt. and asked complainant to make payment of plot at escalated rate i.e. at the rate of Rs.1150/- per sq. mt. instead of Rs.935/- per sq. mt. Complainant requested opposite party vide letter dated 17.1.2001 that due to financial problem plot of smaller size measuring 450 sq. mt. may be allotted otherwise plot be treated as surrendered. Complainant again vide letter dated 19.2.2001 requested for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. mt. otherwise cancel allotment and refund money.

Opposite party filed written statement and submitted that complainant is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and further submitted that as per request of the complainant allotment has been withdrawn and money has been refunded, hence, complaint may be dismissed.

Learned District Forum vide its order dated 12.11.2008 dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.

4. It is an admitted case that complainant applied for an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. mt and deposited money and opposite party allotted industrial plot measuring 600 sq. mt. This fact is not disputed that complainant vide letter dated 17.1.2001 requested for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. mt. instead of 600 sq. mt. and in the alternate requested for treating this allotment as surrendered. Again vide letter dated 19.1.2001 complainant requested for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. mt. instead of 600 sq. mt and further requested that either industrial plot of 450 sq. mt. be allotted or allotment of 600 sq. mt. plot be cancelled and money may be refunded and in pursuance to this letter money has been refunded to complainant by opposite party on 5.3.2001.

5. Later on vide letter of October, 2006, complainant again requested for the allotment of industrial plot of 600 sq. mt. or other plot of 400 to 450 sq. mt. at current rate which was rejected by opposite party.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as complainant had surrendered the plot and money was refunded to him complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer. He further argued that as the plot was industrial, complainant does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and further submitted that complaint is time barred as money was refunded in 2001 whereas complaint has been filed in 2007 and in such circumstance, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and complaint, hence, revision petition may be accepted and order of State Commission may be set aside. On the other hand, learned respondent submitted that petitioner has cheated with the respondent and has not allotted industrial plot of similar size as requested though plots of smaller size were available and in such circumstance order passed by learned State Commission is not in accordance with law , hence, revision petition may be dismissed.

7. It is admitted case that complainant vide its two letters referred to above surrendered industrial plot of 600 sq. mt and requested for refund of money and as petitioner had already withdrawn allotment and refunded money in 2001, complainant does not fall within the purview of C.P. Act. As refund was made in 2001 and complaint has been filed in 2007 on the ground of cheating, etc., complaint is clearly time barred and no application under section 24A has been filed along with the complaint and in such circumstances, as complaint being time barred could not have been entertained by the District Forum and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing time barred complaint.