Jagjit Singh Vs. the Chief Administrator Huda Sonepat and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 2(1)(d), 21(b); cases referred: 1. haryana urban development authority v. m/s. zuari industries, 2009 (3) rcr (civ.) 104 (p and h). (relied) [para 6] 2. huda v. kewal krishan goel and others, 1996 (4) slj 2836. (referred) [para 7] comparative citations: 2012 (3) cpr 524, 2012 (3) cpj 659 justice j. m. malik, presiding member 1. there is a delay of 2 days in filing the revision petition. arguments heard. in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned in view of the contention raised in the revision petition. 2. the facts germane to the present case are these. jagjit singh, advocate, applied for a plot and deposited a sum of rs.46,625/- with haryana urban development authority, the respondent. he was allotted a plot on 18.12.2000. the tentative cost of the plot was rs.5,12,875/- as per terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties. the respondent demanded 25% of the total price of the allotted plot. the complainant accepted the allotment letter and deposited a sum of rs.1,28,219/- against the cost of the plot. rest of the amount was to be paid in installments. 3. the respondents were to offer physical possession of the plot after completion of the development work but the development work was not completed. consequently, the complainant surrendered the plot on 6.7.2002. the respondent refunded the amount of rs.66,454/- against the original amount of rs.1,28,219/-. the grouse of the complainant is that a sum of rs.61,765/- was wrongly deducted. 4. the plea raised by the respondent was that as per condition no. 4 of the allotment letter, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to refuse to accept the allotment letter and communicate refusal by registered a.d. letter so as to reach the office within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter failing which, the allotment shall stand cancelled. the earnest money would be forfeited and the amount was to be refunded after deducting 10% of the total consideration money with interest and other dues payable meaning thereby that 10% of the total cost of the plot which was duly encashed by the complainant, was to be deducted. being aggrieved a complaint was filed before the district forum. the district forum partly allowed the complaint. aggrieved by that order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the state commission and the state commission accepted the appeal. consequently, the complaint was dismissed. 5. we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. he argued that learned state commission has wrongly held that the petitioner is not a consumer. he invited our attention to the complaint itself where it was stated that the complainant is a consumer. he did not advance any other argument. 6. we are of the considered view that the learned state commission correctly held that the petitioner is no more a consumer. it must be borne in mind that the complainant surrendered the plot voluntarily. he accepted the cheque sent by the respondent without demur. he should not have accepted the amount without raising any objection. it is well settled that after surrender of the plot and getting refund of the deposited amount, the complainant does not remain to be a consumer. learned state commission has quoted the authority of punjab and haryana high court reported in haryana urban development authority versus m/s zuari industries, 2009(3) r.c.r. (civil) 104 (pandh). 7. learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondent can deduct 10% of the earnest money only. in huda vs. kewal krishan goel and others slj 96(4)2836, the supreme court was pleased to hold that under such like circumstances, the competent authority will be fully justified in forfeiting the earnest money which had been deposited and not the 10% of the amount deposited as held by the high court. 8. the revision petition is without merits and the same is therefore, dismissed.