The impugned order dated 9.5.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula   (hereinafter referred as  the State Commission) in F.A. No.1260 /2006, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) through Estate Officer, Faridabad vs. Smt. Santosh Gupta through G.P.A. Raj Kumar,  is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition filed on behalf of complainant, Smt. Santosh Gupta.  The State Commission, vide impugned order allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad on 24.10.2005 in Consumer Complaint No.425/2005, filed on 7.2.2005.

2.      Facts of the case are that the complainant/ petitioner Santosh Gupta was allotted Plot No.1155-P in Sector-46, Faridabad by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on 17.1.1991 at a tentative price of Rs.3,39,383/-.   The complainant deposited 25% of the consideration amount, but on her failure to deposit the balance amount, the allotment in question was cancelled, after serving notice upon the complainant under the relevant provisions of the HUDA Act. The complainant filed appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad, wherein she was directed to deposit the balance price of the plot within 15 days from the date of the Award i.e. 12.11.1996. The complainant was offered an alternative plot No.638, Sector-45, Faridabad in lieu of the plot allotted earlier and the complainant submitted her consent in the shape of an affidavit dated 12.6.1998. However, the complainant did not come forward to take physical possession of the said plot,  taking the plea that the basic amenities, like school, shopping  center,  telephone exchange etc. had not been created and there was no proper entrance to Sector-45, Faridabad. The consumer complaint in question was filed through General Power of Attorney (GPA) Raj Kumar who is a resident of Faridabad on behalf of complainant, stating that alternative plot no.248 or 247 in Sector-46, Faridabad be allotted to the complainant on the same price in lieu of the plots earlier allotted. It was also demanded that interest @ 18% per annum on the total amount deposited with the OP-HUDA be given to them and further amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost should be given.

3.      The District Forum, Faridabad vide order dated 24.10.2005, allowed the said complaint filed in the year 2005 and gave direction to the HUDA to allot plot no.12, Sector-46, Faridabad in lieu of the plots earlier allotted i.e. Plot No.1155 –P, Sector-46, Faridabad and the alternative plot no.638, Sector-45, Faridabad on similar price. The OP-HUDA was also directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant on the amount deposited by them and not to charge any kind of penal interest, penalty or extension fee etc. The complainant was also ordered to be paid compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.2500/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against the said order,  the OP-HUDA challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved against the said order,  the complainant through her GPA is before this Commission by way of  the present revision petition.

4.      During hearing before this Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record a copy of the application for condonation of delay, filed by HUDA before the State Commission, because there was delay of 176 days in filing appeal by HUDA before the State Commission. However, despite numerous opportunities, the learned counsel did not file the said application. Later on, the learned counsel sought time to file reply to the said application for condonation of delay stated to be filed by the complainant, but even after getting numerous opportunities,  the learned counsel could not file the same and ultimately on 19.5.2016, learned counsel submitted that he did not want to file any such document. The arguments of the learned counsel were then heard in support of  the present revision petition. The learned counsel argued that the impugned order passed by the State Commission was not in accordance with law,  as there had been a delay of 176 days on the part of HUDA in filing the said appeal. The appeal should have been dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of delay alone. Further, the allotment of the plot in question had been made to the complainant by HUDA as far back as in the year 1991, but on account of their failure to carry out the development works, an alternative plot had been allotted to them in the year 1998,  but the same was not accepted by the complainant. The complainant had already deposited 25% of the value of the original plot allotted to her and  the said amount is still lying with HUDA. The consumer complaint was therefore filed in the year 2005 as the HUDA failed to deliver possession of the alternative plot as well. The present petition should therefore be accepted and the order passed by the District Forum upheld.

5.      After conclusion of arguments, learned counsel submitted copies of judgments in support of his contention as per the details below;

        “i)     Haryana Urban Development Authrity Vs. ShantiDevi, 

                I (2005) CPJ 6 Supreme Court

ii)      Lata Construction & Ors. vs. Dr. Rameshchandra   

         Ramniklal  Shah and Anr.,

        (AIR) 2000 Supreme Court 380; 

iii)    New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Iqbal I Tada, 

                III (2011) CPJ 124 (NC)

iv)    Consumer Education & Research Society & Anr. Vs.

        New India  Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.,

        I (2008) CPJ 317 (NC);

v)     Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development

       Authority,

       IV (2011) CPJ 63 Supreme Court

 (vi ) Basawraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer;

       C.A. No.6974/2013, decided on 22.8.2013 by Supreme

       Court;

vii)   State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. & Ors.,

       (2005) Supreme Court Cases 752   and

viii)  Shri Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech

       and other allied cases,

      ( CC No.427 of 2014 and other allied cases decided on

       8.6.2015 by this Commission).

6.      I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

7.      The facts on record make it very clear that Plot No.1155-P, Sector-46, Faridabad was allotted by HUDA to the complainant in the year 1991, but the said allotment was cancelled,  because of  the failure of the complainant to deposit the balance amount. The order of cancellation was challenged by the complainant before the Administrator and  the  HUDA decided to allot alternative plot to the complainant in the year 1998,  for which they gave their consent as well. The plea taken by the complainant is that since there was no facility like shopping centre, school, dispensary, telephone exchange etc., the complainant did not deposit the balance amount for that plot as well. Later on, they filed the consumer complaint in question in the year 2005, that is after 7 years of the allotment of the alternative plot. The said complaint was allowed by the District Forum and a  third plot,  bearing no.12, Sector-46, Faridabad was ordered to be allotted to her at the previous rates and  compensation was also awarded to her.  The State Commission after considering the entire facts of the case came to the conclusion that the delay of 176 days in filing the said appeal should be condoned, because the District Forum had passed their order,  without appreciating the facts of the case. The application for condonation of delay had been moved by the HUDA before the State Commission accompanied by an affidavit. The State Commission has given detailed reasons for condonation of delay and have also referred to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland vs. Lipok A.O. and others, (2005)3 SCC 752   in this regard. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission in ordering the condonation of delay,  as they found sufficient cause to do so.

8.      The contention of the petitioner that the State Commission should not have condoned the delay in filing the said appeal is therefore without any reasonable basis and cannot be accepted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction at this stage.

9.      Now coming to the merits of the case, the State Commission have observed that an alternative plot was allotted to the complainant on 12.8.1998, but the consumer complaint was filed on 7.6.2005,  that is after about 7 years of the said allotment, which was beyond  the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24A of the Act. The State Commission have considered the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) and in  V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) vs. Anita Sena Fernandes, 2011 CTJ 1 (SC), and brought out clearly that there was no justification on the part of the complainant  to have filed the consumer complaint  after a lapse of 7 years and hence, there was no justification for the condonation of delay.  I do not find any sufficient reasons to disagree with the findings of the State Commission on this ground as well,  that the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum after 7 years of the allotment of the alternative plot,  was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act.

10.    The State Commission has further observed that the essential amenities for allotment of plot by HUDA are  the supply of electricity, drinking water, roads and sewerage etc. The complainant has however taken the plea that facilities like shopping centre, school, dispensary, telephone exchange etc. were not provided and hence, they did not deposit the balance amount for the allotment of the alternative plot. This plea of the complainant is obviously not justified as observed by the State Commission and there is no reason  to disagree with the findings of the State Commission on  this ground as well. It has further been observed by the State Commission that the complainant was a resident of Moga (Punjab), whereas the GPA  was a property dealer and resident of  Faridabad, Haryana where the plot in question was situated. The State Commission have rightly observed that once an alternative plot had been allotted by HUDA as Plot No.638, Sector-45, Faridabad and accepted by the complainant,  the complainant could not agitate through her GPA for allotment of another plot in Faridabad. The State Commission,  therefore, rightly concluded that the consumer complaint in question was not maintainable.

11     During arguments on the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the order dated 8.6.2015,  passed by this Commission in C.C. No.427 of 2014,  Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. M/s. Unitech & others (supra) taking the plea that the buyers of plot/flat could approach the consumer forum as long as the possession was not delivered to them. The facts of the present case are different from the facts in CC No.427 of 2014, because the issue involved in that matter was the non-delivery of possession due to non-construction of flats by a builder. The present case is concerned with the allotment of plot and the complainant failed to deposit the balance amount for the plot  and hence, possession could not be delivered to them.  The judgments in the case HUDA Vs. Shanti Devi (supra) also, is not helpful to the petitioner,  because the issue in question was regarding the delivery of possession only and the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that if the HUDA was not able to deliver possession within time, they cannot charge interest on delayed payments.  In Lata Construction vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramniklal Shah (supra), the builder had expressed their inability to provide flat in accordance with the written agreement and entered into a fresh agreement with them. Because of their failure to honour the commitments under both the agreements, it was held that it was a case of continuing cause of action. It is clear therefore, that the facts of the present case are entirely different from the cases quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence, there is no justification for making any modification in the order passed by the State Commission.

12.    In the light of  the facts stated above, I do not find any proper justification to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission, by which they decided to dismiss the consumer complaint in question and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. The present petition is, therefore, without any basis and  the same is ordered to be dismissed at admission stage and the order passed by the State Commission upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.