Complainant/appellant had filed complaint seeking refund of 10% of the price of the plot being the corner plot. Complaint was allowed. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission. -2- During the pendency of the appeals, appellant filed the second complaint seeking following reliefs: a. to direct the opposite party to pay interest to the complainant for the period 30.9.04 to 11.8.06 during which opposite party failed to hand over possession of the plot to the complainant despite deposit of 100% price of the plot i.e. 3,56,400/- with penal interest @ 18% per annum for the late deposit of 4th instalment by few days. The interest is payable at this rate for the said period amounting to Rs.1,17,612/- with further interest from 11.8.06 at the same rate till the date of payment, b. to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.1,48,048/- claimed as amount of enhanced compensation with interest @ 14% per annum i.e. the rate of interest claimed/charged by the opposite party, amounting to Rs.28,490/-(interest from 14.8.08 till 31.12.09), totaling Rs.1,76,538/- with further interest at the same rate w.e.f. 01.01.10 till payment, c. to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant compensation/damages of Rs.20,00,000/- for deficiency of service and/or manipulation of conditions of delivery of service for mental torture, harassment, deprivation and extracting of money illegally on one pretext or the other, d. to direct the opposite party to declare that the date of handing over of possession of the plot to the complainant in question is 11.8.06 and not 30.9.04, e. to declare that as per policy of HUDA, being adopted by the opposite party, the period to complete minimum construction from the date of offer of possession is 15 years, including two years initial period, on payment of extension fees or in the alternative as per information loaded on the website by the opposite party, the initial period for completing minimum construction on the plot of the complainant is 3 years which can further be extended for another 3 years on payment of extension fee and while calculating the period, addition one year benefit has to be granted in view of circular of the opposite party dated 16.7.09. Further complainant is entitled for adjustment of Rs. 12,975/- already paid by him for grant of such extension, f. to direct the opposite party to specifically clear as to how much minimum construction in square feet or in square meter has to be raised by the complainant on the plot in question, g. to direct the opposite party not to force the complainant to raise construction on the plot in question without first making the basic amenities of life available in the area as were claimed to be already existing at the time of launch of the scheme in February, 2002, h. to declare that the opposite party has indulged in unfair and restrictive trade practices, with further directions to stop the same and not to repeat the same in future, i. to direct the opposite party to make their working transparent by making public their entire policies for information of the allottees and to upload the same on their website,. State Commission dismissed the complaint holding as under: 6. Such relief cannot be granted by this Forum not only because they will involve adducing of evidence by the parties but also because this Commission has no jurisdiction to grant some of the reliefs. Reference may be made in particular to the relief No.(e)(f)(j) seeking direction to the OP to execute the sale deed, that the period to complete minimum construction in 15 years to specifically
-5- declare how much construction has to raised in meters on the plot in question. This Commission has no jurisdiction to issue any such directions and it is only the civil court which may do so in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and other legal provisions. We may therefore refer to relief No. (i) which seeks issuance of directions for making OPs working public by making transparent their entire policies for information.” Since the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of maintainability, State Commission reserved liberty with the appellant to seek redressal of his grievance in any other forum. Appellant who is appearing in person seeks to withdraw the appeal with liberty to seek redressal of his grievance in any other forum. Dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is reserved with the appellant to seek redressal of his grievance in any other forum along with an application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking exclude of the time spent in the consumer fora while calculating the limitation in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi
-6- Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583. | 
