1.            By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Haryanan Urban Development Authority/Opposite Party in the Complaint, (for short “the HUDA”) questions the correctness and legality of the Order dated 02.12.2001 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”), in First Appeal No. 847 of 2016. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the HUDA against the Order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Case No. 11 of 2014. The District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by the Complainant has directed the HUDA to allot a suitable plot to the Complainant out of the plots mentioned in the Letter bearing Memo No.14762 dated 26.09.14, if vacant, in terms of original letter of allotment. The HUDA was also directed to pay interest as per its policy on each deposit from the date of respective deposits till offer of alternative plot, apart from compensation of mental agony and litigation expenses to the tune of ₹25,000/-.

2.            Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was allotted Plot No 3121, Sector 57, Urban Estate, Gurgaon by HUDA Vide Allotment Letter No. 148 dated 28.01.2005. The Complainant was paying the instalments regularly and was waiting for offer of possession, however, upon enquiry, it was revealed that there was no existence of the allotted Plot No. 3121 in the Site Plan of Sector 57, Urban Estate Gurgaon. Since possession could not be handed over to the Complainant by the HUDA, she filed Writ Petition No. 19140 of 2011 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Referring to its earlier Order dated 01.03.2012 passed in the case of Subhash Puri Vs. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble High Court, Vide Order dated 17.04.2012 directed that all the Allottees of Sector 57 who had not been delivered possession shall be considered by HUDA for allotment of alternative plot preferably in the same Sector or in Sector 51, Gurgaon in terms of the policy dated 10.12.2007. According to the Complainant, HUDA had failed to comply with the aforesaid directions and thus, the Complainant preferred Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 2014 before the District Forum seeking delayed compensation and interest.

3.            The Complaint was resisted by the HUDA stating that they were ready to conduct draw of lots but in the meanwhile due to stay imposed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2759/2013 titled Mahender Pal Jain Vs. State of Haryana, the draw of lots for allotment of alternative plot could not be conducted. Subsequently, Vide letter No. 7556 dated 04.07.2014, the Complainant was allotted Plot no. 1377, Sector 51, Gurgaon. However, the Plot No. 1377, Sector 51 was not accepted by the Complainant as in another case the Plot No.1376, Sector 51 allotted to one Suprabha Dahiya was not suitable.

4.            The District Forum, vide Order dated 09.06.2016, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the HUDA to allot a suitable Plot to the Complainant along with delayed interest from the date of deposit till offer of alternate Plot, along with costs. The operative portion of the Order dated 09.06.2016 is as under:-

“Therefore, keeping in view the stand taken by the OP and keeping in view the principle of parity, we direct the Opposite Party to allot a suitable plot to the Complainant out of the plots mentioned in the letter bearing Memo No. 14762 dated 26.09.2014 (if lying vacant) issued by Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon to Chief Administrator, HUDA Panchkula in terms of original letter of allotment bearing No. 148 dated 28.01.2005.  The Complainant is also entitled to interest as per rates of the HUDA policy on each deposit from the date of respective deposits till offer of alternate plot. The Complainant is also held entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of ₹25,000/-. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties be communicated of the Order accordingly and file be consigned to the records after due compliance.”

5.            Aggrieved by this order, the HUDA preferred Appeal before the State Commission, assailing the Order dated 09.06.2016, which was dismissed upholding the order passed by the District Forum. It was observed as under:

“Under the constraint circumstances, the consumer complaint was filed in the District Forum (Now District Commission), Gurugram which was finally decided by the learned District Commission vide order dated 09.06.2016 and it was directed that on the basis of principle of parity, a suitable plot was allotted to the Complainant out of the plots mentioned in the letter bearing Memo No. 14762 dated 26.09.2014 (if lying vacant) issued by Administrator, HUDA Gurgaon to Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula in terms of original letter of allotment bearing No. 148 dated 28.01.2005.  It was further directed to pay interest as per rates of HUDA policy on each deposit from the date of respective deposits till offer of alternate plot.  The compliance was to be done within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  Instead of complying the impugned order, the allotment agency had entered into an un-ended litigation by way of filing the present appeal.

In view of the above, the allotment authorities are directed to allot an alternative and suitable plot to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.  It is further directed that whatever the amount had already been deposited by the Complainant, would be adjusted against total sale consideration of the alternate plot to be allotted to the complainant in Sector 46 Gurugram. It is further directed that complainant is entitled for interest as per HUDA policy from the date of respective deposits till offer of alternate plot.   As a consequence thereof, the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant have been considered but have not been found to be tenable without enforcing merit and render no assistance. While concurring with arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent in the present appeal, the appeal apparently is devoid of merits and stands dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/-.”

6.            Being aggrieved, the HUDA is before us by filing the present Revision Petition. 

7.            Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the HUDA fervidly argued that the alternative Plot could not be allotted to the Complainant in time due to Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2759/2013 – Mahender Pal Jain Vs. State of Haryana – staying the holding of draw of lots for allotment of alternative plots in Gurgaon by the Petitioner. He further submitted that the alternative Plot No. 1377 allotted to the complainant in Sector 51 was suitable in all respect and no reason whatsoever has been assigned qua the unsuitability of the said Plot by the Complainant except that since the adjacent Plot No.1376 allotted to one Suprabha Dahiya was not found suitable and she was allotted an alternative plot in place of Plot No. 1376, the plot No.1377 allotted to Complainant was also unsuitable. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that as per report dated 24.12.2021, submitted by their Divisional Engineer, the alternative plot allotted to the Complainant was vacant and all the development work done. Hence, the Plot No.1377 allotted to the complainant was suitable in all respects. He vigorously pleaded that apprehension of the Complainant for allotment of another alternative plot is baseless, illogical and is without leg to stand. Besides, the Complainant is not entitled for any interest as there was no deficiency in service on their part.

8.            As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant supported the well-reasoned Orders passed by the Fora Below and submitted that there was glare deficiency in service on the part of the HUDA in allotting the Plot No.3121 which was not in existence of site plan of Sector 57 Gurgaon. Moreover, the alternative plot No. 1377 allotted to the Complainant in Sector 51 was also not suitable inasmuch as the adjacent plot No.1376 in the same Sector allotted to Smt. Suprabha Dahiya was found unsuitable and the HUDA allotted her an alternative plot No.3059 P in Sector 46 Gurgaon in lieu plot No.1376 allotted to her. Similarly another Plot No. 3066, Sector 46, Gurugram was allotted to one Shri Hemant in place of Plot originally allotted to him. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for an alternative plot with reasonable compensation and interest.

9.            I have heard Mr. Anurag Kulharia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/Petitioner herein, Mr. Ishwar Singh Sangwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, perused the material available on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.

10.          Undisputedly, the Complainant was allotted Plot No.3121 in Sector 57, Urban Estate, Gurgaon by the Petitioner HUDA vide Allotment Letter No.148 dated 28.01.2005. She had paid the entire consideration of the allotted plot to the HUDA, however, the HUDA has despondently failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the Complainant despite her oral repeated requests. On enquiry it was revealed and the Complainant was totally shocked to know that the Plot allotted to her was not at all in existence in the site Plan of Sector 57, Gurgaon though she had paid the entire consideration for the same. Therefore, the Complainant requested the Petitioner HUDA to allot an alternative plot in lieu of originally allotted plot to her but they did not pay any heed to her request. Finally, for redressal of her grievance, she approached to High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Writ Petition No. 19140 of 2011. Vide Order dated 17.04.2012, the High Court directed the HUDA to complete the process of allotment of alternative plot to the Complainant within a period of five months in terms of the HUDA policy dated 10.12.2007. However, the Petitioner HUDA did not comply with the said direction of the High Court on the pretext the due to stay imposed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP Nol.2759 of 2013 on holding draw of lots for allotment of alternative plot, the alternative plot could not be allotted to the Complainant. But, it will not be out of place to mention here that the said Writ Petition was filed in the year 2013 and in terms of Order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 19140 of 2011, the Petitioner HUDA was under in obligation to allot an alternative plot within five months from the date of order which means the alternative plot was to be allotted to the Complainant by all means latest by 16.09.2012 which duty they failed to discharge and it tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. Nevertheless, the Complainant was allotted a plot which was not in existence in the site plan of Sector 57 and the Petitioner HUDA had collected the entire sale consideration for the said Plot. Under these circumstances, the HUDA was duty bound to make an attempt for allotment of an alternative plot to the Complainant at their own instead of making the Complainant to run from pillar to post. Numbers of time, the Complainant approached the HUDA for allotment of an alternative plot but they did not bother to redress the genuine grievance of the Complainant.  It was only during the proceedings in the Complaint before the District Forum that the Complainant was allotted alternative Plot No. 1377 in Sector 51, Gurgaon, however, the said plot was not found suitable by the Complainant.  It is not understood when HUDA can allot alternative plot in Sector 46 to two other allottees, i.e., Suprabha Dahiya and Hemant in lieu of the plots allotted to them in Sector 51, as to why, in the present case, HUDA cannot allot alternative Plot to the Complainant/Respondent in lieu of plot allotted in Sector 51.  I fully agree with the view taken by the Fora below that the Plot No. 1377 in Sector 51 allotted to the Complainant was not suitable inasmuch as other two plot allottees of Sector 51, i.e., Suprabha Dahiya and Hement were allotted alternative plots in Sector 46 in lieu of the plots allotted to them in Sector 51.  In view of the concurrent finding of the facts rendered by the Fora below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the HUDA, I do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission warranting interference u/s 21(b) of the Act.

11.          Moreover, the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  by observing as under:-

“9.          It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.          For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Impugned Order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the State Commission which is based on proper and correct appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the Parties.  Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.