Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the impugned order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.545 of 2015. 2. Brief facts of this case as per Petitioner/Complainant are that the Petitioner was allotted Plot No.1256, Sector-1, Narnaul vide letter dated 28.08.2003 for the tentative price of Rs.2,48,350/- and he deposited a sum of Rs.37,250/- with the Respondents/ Opposite Party on 12.09.2003 being 15% of the required amount. The Petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.72,088/-upto 12.09.2003 and details of deposits of remaining amount are as under:- “Rs.66,444 on 20.09.2005, Rs.31,043/- on 27.12.2007 Rs. 31,043 on 09.01.2009 Rs.90,000/- on 26.02.2011 Rs.72,665/- on 09.03.2011”. 3. Inspite of having made payment of Rs.3,63,283/-, the Respondents/Opposite Parties had failed to deliver possession of the Plot. Petitioner, therefore, prayed that the Respondents be directed to deliver possession and pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation and 24% interest to compensate for the increase in the cost of construction material and on the amount deposited by him. 4. Respondents filed the reply controverting the averments of the Complaint and stated that possession was already offered to the Complainant on 25.05.2013. As per allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered after completion of development work. Objections about maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, estopple, concealing true facts from the District Forum etc. were also raised with a request to dismiss the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short, ‘District Forum’) while allowing the Complaint, vide its order dated 20.11.2014, passed the following order:- “Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay interest over the entire deposit @ 12% p.a. from 09.03.2011 till. The date of delivery of possession i.e. 25.05.2013 to the complainant. The complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- on account of hike in price of construction material and litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs.5,500/-against the opposite parties.” 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Respondents filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide their order dated 20.10.2015 while allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondents, observed as under:- “6. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the plot was allotted in the year 2003, the payment was made in the year 2011, but, possession was not delivered till the year 2013. During this period, prices of construction material increased manifold and he has suffered huge loss. Learned District Forum has rightly directed for compensation as mentioned above and the appeal be dismissed. 7. This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of allotment letter Ex. C-2, the possession was to be delivered after the completion of the development work. No specific time was mentioned in this letter. Complainant has miserably failed to show that when development work was completed. Had there been any delay in offering possession thereafter then it could have been a different matter. 8. More so, complainant has also concealed the true facts from the Forum. Possession was offered to him vide letter dated 25.05.2013 copy of which is Ex.OP-2, but, despite that he has requested to direct OP to deliver possession. When the possession is already offered there was no question of any direction. In such a situation the O.P. cannot be burdened with compensation as ordered by the learned District Forum. Hence impugned order dated 20.11.2014 is set aside. Resultantly appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.” 7. Hence, the Revision Petition. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the State Commission has committed an error in not considering the fact that the Respondents had delayed in offering the possession of the plot from the date of allotment of the plot. Inspite of having received 100% of the tentative payment by 09.03.2011, the possession of the plot was offered only on 25.05.2013 and hence it is apparent that there was an inordinate delay of 10 years from the date of allotment till offering of possession of the plot to the Complainant. He further contended that in the allotment letter no specific time was mentioned in completing the development work. The Counsel for the Complainant further contended that the Hon’ble National Consumer in the matter titled as Mohit Bindal vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority held that reasonable period for completing the development work in such cases would be 2 to 3 years. 10. The learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, admitted that the allotment letter was issued on 28.08.2003, Clause no. 7 of the allotment letter, it is specifically mentioned that the possession would be offered on completion of the development works in the area. He also contended that the Petitioner had concealed the material facts in his Complaint. Though he has admitted that offer of possession of the plot was made on 25.05.2013 to the Petitioner, he has concealed the fact that he has already taken the possession of the plot in the year 2013 without protest. 11. On our enquiry, during the course of the arguments as to when the Petitioner had taken over the possession, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner had stated that though he cannot give the specific date, it would soon after the offer of possession which was in May, 2013. 12. On perusal of the record, we find that the Petitioner/Complainant has filed the Complaint before the District Forum on 24.09.2013 with a prayer to direct the Respondents/ Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of plot No.1256 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has failed to mention in the said Complaint that he had already received the offer of possession in May, 2013 well before filing the Consumer Complaint. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also failed to explain that if a reasonable period for completion of development works is taken from 2 to 3 years, why the Petitioner has failed to file the Complaint by the year 2006 or thereafter within two years from the date when he had paid 100% of the price of the plot in question to the Respondents i.e. on 09.03.2011 as alleged by him. As per his own case, the Complaint filed by the Petitioner before the District Forum was barred by limitation. The fact remains that the Complaint was filed on 24.09.2013 after he was offered the possession and taken over the possession of the plot in question. We concur with the findings given by the State Commission that “Complainant has miserably failed to show that when the development work was completed”. Hence, the allegations of the Complainant that there was delay in offering the possession of the plot to him cannot be substantiated from the facts of record. More so, we agree with the State Commission that the Petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Forum and has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. 13. Thus, in view of the above discussions, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity in allowing the Appeal and resultantly dismissing the Complaint. The present Revision Petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to cost. | 
