PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Capt. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Complainant/Petitioner is an Ex-army officer and senior citizen of 79 years old.  He registered a residential plot with the D.D.A., Opposite Party on 29.03.1981 under the Rohini MIG residential scheme and deposited earnest money of Rs. 5,000/-.  The complainant informed the DDA about his new address in the month of November 1998.  The complainant made an enquiry and he was informed that in the month of September, 2003, Plot No. C-3/278, Sector-28, Rohini, Delhi was allotted to him and the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to his old address but unfortunately t is received back as undelivered.   As such his allotment was cancelled in March 2004.

2.      The petitioner made a request to the DDA to restore his plot vide letter dated 05.09.2005.  The DDA rejected the claim of the complainant on 08.01.2007.  The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court.  Contempt of Court application was filed.  D.D.A.  filed appeal before the Division Bench, which was rejected.  Ultimately, the petitioner got the accommodation on 30.04.2010.

3.      The petitioner/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum on 27.07.2010.  The petitioner demanded compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- .  Both the Fora have dismissed the request made by the complainant.  We have heard the petitioner in person.  It is apparent that the cause of action had arose on 08.01.2007.  The complaint should have been filed before the District Forum within two years i.e. till 07.01.2009. It is true that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedy to the petitioner in such like cases but the complaint filed by the complainant must be in time.  No application for condonation of delay was moved before the District Forum.

4.      Moreover, the High Court in its order did not grant any compensation to the petitioner.  The case is without merit and is barred by time, therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.