The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.5.2016 in in appeal No.1029/2015 of the respondent filed against the order dated 17.9.2015 of District Forum in complaint No.6/2014 of the petitioner.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a flat No.1857 located in Sector-14P, Hisar vide allotment letter No.21942 dated 21.8.1986 issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar. The allotment letter showed certain money which was payable by the petitioner by installments or in lumpsum and in case of failure 10% interest was chargeable on the due amount. He wrote a letter to HUDA in 2010 asking if any balance money was payable by him. HUDA informed him vide letter dated 25.11.2010 that there were no dues against him. The petitioner thereafter applied for the sanctioning of the plan and on own deposited Rs.15,000/- as extension fee on 28^th December, 2012. His building plan was sanctioned vide letter dated 6^th March, 2013. Vide letter 28.6.2013 he applied for the occupation certificate on the construction raised on the said plot. HUDA, the respondent raised a demand of Rs.3,47,340/- vide letter dated 1.5.2013. Later, however, a demand of Rs.3,39,714/- was made. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 29.5.2013 under RTI asking for the statement of account. The statement of account was supplied to him in the proceedings in first appeal before the authorities of RTI. The petitioner learnt that he had to pay Rs.3,46,726/-. He filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that in terms of letter dated 25.11.2010 whereby he was informed that there were no dues against him, the respondent cannot demand any money from him and cannot charge any interest and surcharge after 25.11.2010.

3.       The respondent had contested the claim. It is alleged that certain money was due against the petitioner which he did not pay. It was also contended that he was required to raise construction over the subject flat within two years which he failed to do and has been asking for extension and therefore liable to pay extension fee alongwith surcharge. Therefore, the demand of the aforesaid payment from the respondent is justified. Parties led their evidences and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels and going through the evidence, the District Forum passed the following directions: -

In view of the said finding, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and the opposite party is directed not to recover the dues, if any, as on the date of the issue of said letter dated 25.11.2010, from the complainant. Further, it is ordered, if the dues are outstanding against the said plot in question as on the date of issue of letter dated 25.11.2010, the said amount will be recovered by the opposite party from the salary of the concerned officials who issued the letter dated 25.11.2010. Further, it is made clear that the complainant shall be liable to pay the dues accrued subsequently the issue of letter dated 25.11.2010, to the opposite party. No order as to cost.”

4.       This order was impugned by the respondent in appeal No.1029/2015 in which the impugned order has been passed. The appeal of the respondent was allowed and the State Commission has held as under: -

Indisputably, plot No.1857-P Sector 14 Hisar was allot to the complainant on 21.8.1986. The possession was offered on 1.5.1998. Though at the time of allotment, the area of the plot was292.65 square meters but at the time of physical possession an area of 306.55 square meter plot was handed over. Thus, the complainant was liable to pay the price of extra land that is 13.90 square meters. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, construction on the plot was to be completed within two years from the date of offer of possession. So, the complainant was to complete the construction up to 1.5.2000, which he did not do. That being so, the complainant was liable to pay extension fee etc. as per HUDA rules.

As per the account statement (Exhibit R-1) a sum of Rs.4,96,138/- was outstanding as dues towards the plot of the complainant and the same was to increase with the passage of time by adding interest and surcharge etc. The complainant cannot take the benefit of wrong calculation carried out by some official of HUDA. It is a matter of statement of account which the complainant has been able to dispute. Merely because some official of HUDA whether intentionally or unintentionally gave ‘No Dues Certificate’ the same cannot absolve the complainant from paying the dues payable by him. The District Forum by allowing the complainant has not given any reason as to why the complainant has been absolved from the liability to clear the arrears. So, the impugned order cannot sustain.”

5.       This order is impugned before us by the petitioner/complainant. It is submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. He did not pay because vide letter dated 25.11.2010 he was informed that there was no dues against him. It is submitted that he is not liable to pay any interest on the amount dues for the period from 2010 onwards. It is submitted that the demand of the respondent is illegal and hence the direction of the State Commission in the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6.       It is argued on behalf of the respondent that there was increase in the area of the plot which the petitioner was liable to pay which he did not pay. He also did not pay the due installments which he was liable to pay as per the allotment letter and therefore he is liable to pay the interest on the amount due. It is further submitted that since in terms of the possession letter the petitioner was required to raise the construction over the subject plot within two years which he did not do and he raised the construction only in the year 2013 and therefore extension fee was levied on him and he was liable to pay surcharge also.

7.       We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record produced before us. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited. It is not required to re-appreciate or re-access the evidence and then reach to a different conclusion.  From the record it is clear that at the time when plot was allotted to the petitioner he was required to pay certain dues. Petitioner has not showed that he had paid those dues as per the allotment letter nor it is his contention that he had paid all the dues as per the allotment letter which was payable in six installments and on failure 10% interest is chargeable on it. Simply because one employee of the respondent had issued a no dues letter, it does not absolve the petitioner of his liability to pay all his dues, payable under the letter of allotment. The fact whether he had paid or not paid those dues to the respondent is a fact which was in his knowledge and the petitioner cannot take shelter of the letter dated 25.11.2010. The argument that he is not liable to pay interest after 2010 is not acceptable. As per terms of the allotment letter he is liable to pay interest on the amount which was payable under that letter and not paid by him. He is also liable to pay charges for the increased area of the plot. It is admitted that the area of his plot was more than what had been allotted to him and he is liable to pay charges for the same, was also within his knowledge. He was required to pay the said money which was within his knowledge and if he had not done it, he has to pay the interest. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner did not raise construction over the said plot within two years, a term in the allotment letter, which binds him to do so.

8.       In view of these facts, the finding of the State Commission cannot be faulted. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed.