ORAL JUDGMENTPER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR This appeal arises out of dismissal of complaint case no. 96/2001 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. 2. The appellant filed complaint against the Punjab Urban Development Planning & Development Authority (PUDP&DA) alleging that she had sought plot during course of allotment scheme which was floated in the year 1969. She had deposited the registration fee of Rs.500/- on 28-08-1969. She also deposited the earnest money on 30-01-1975. She could not get any allotment letter. The appellant further made several attempts on various occasions but could not get allotment of any plot under any of the schemes at subsequent time. The PUDA (respondent) time and again, informed the appellant that she had not complied with the requirements as per the scheme. Eventually, the entire amount deposited by the appellant was refunded to her on 30th July, 2001. The appellant accepted the said amount and later on filed complaint on 28-09-2001. The prayer of the appellant was that the respondent (PUDA) may be directed to allot the plot of 250 sq. yards or 200 sq. yards in Phase XI at Mohali at the price prevailing in 1969. Alternatively she sought that refund shall be in accordance with the enhanced price with interest @ 21% p.a. and compensation shall also be paid to her. 3. The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that the appellant could not have any grievance regarding deficiency in service. The State Commission also held that after the refund of the entire amount to the appellant her relationship with the respondent (PUDA) as a consumer was legally snapped. Therefore, the consumer complaint was not maintainable and as such it was dismissed. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order and relevant material placed on record, we are in general agreement with the reasons ascribed by the State Commission. In fact, it is undisputed that no allotment of any plot was whether made to the appellant in any of the scheme. It is further admitted fact that the initially scheme of 1969 was not continued on the same terms and therefore, the appellant had no substantial right to claim the plot pertaining to that scheme. If the appellant sought allotment of the plot on basis of “Legitimate Expectations” then her remedy lies elsewhere. The principles like “promisory estopple” or “Legitimate Expectation” are of no avail in the summary proceedings before the consumer commission. The appellant is at liberty to take appropriate steps and go before appropriate legal forum as may be permissible under the law if her grievance is that the amount should have been paid along with the interest or that the repayment should have been commensurate with the juxta-position of the price of the similar plot as per the prevailing rate when the repayment was made in 2001. Still however, the facts remains that she does not come within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in view of the admitted position that there was no allotment in her favor at any time. 5. In the result the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy as may be permissible under the law. No cost. | 
