ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner Punjab Planning & Development Authority (P.U.D.A.) against the order of State Commission dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant Major S.R. Sharma applied for allotment of a plot measuring 200 Sq. yards at Mohali in 1976 for which he deposited Rs.1,000/- as initial deposit. Upon retirement from Army/BSF the Respondent/Complainant intimated change of address on 1.3.1981 and 27.4.81 which was followed by a letter dated 11.10.82 sent under Registered Cover with A.D. and further letters dated 27.2.1985, 13.2.1989 and a reminder on 27.2.1998 (all exhibited before District Forum). On getting no reply from the Petitioner, UPDA, the Respondent/Complainant approached the former, in person in May, 1988, wherein he was told that the Punjab Government had earmarked Sector 71, Mohali Urban Estate for allotment to Defence Personnel, where in at the time of allotment of plots, all applications, including those of old applicants were to be considered for ‘exercise’ of option. He was also told PUDA that since the Respondent/Complainant had exercised no such option upon being intimated of the same at the old address, the Complainant has lost the right to be considered and has initial deposit has been refunded in 1996. It is the case of the Petitioner that they never got any letter intimating them the change of address, hence they continued to correspond at the old address from where the letters always came back-addressee left. Having been deprived of the opportunity to get a plot in Mohali, he approached the District Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of PUDA and claiming allotment of a plot measuring 200 Sq. Yards and a compensation of Rs.20,000/- plus costs. Evidence was led by both parties and after hearing both the parties the District Forum agreed with the plea of deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner and ordered allotment of plot measuring 200 Sq. Yards and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. District Forum held that it is not found acceptable that the Petitioner did not receive any letter intimating the change of address. Petitioner accepts receipt only of legal notice sent by the Respondent/Complainant on the same address, and not other letters sent by the same person. NO satisfactory reply was forthcoming the Petitioner when faced with the acknowledgement receipt duly stamped and signed by the office of the Petitioner. This letter informed the Petitioner of the change of address by the Respondent/Complainant. This nailed the issue of non-receipt of intimation of change of address by the Respondent/Complainant to the Petitioner. The State Commission, on hearing the matter in appeal filed by the Petitioner also found them deficient in service and only partly accepted the appeal and modified the order of the district Forum to the extent of reducing the compensation to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.50,000/-. It is against this order that Revision Petitioner has been filed by the Petitioner PUDA.
3. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.Issar that Complaint itself is time barred as according to her the cause of action arose in 1988 and accepting 24A of Consumer Protection Act. She also argued that the Respondent/Complainant is not a consumer as no plot was allotted to him, hence no right accrued to him. She also argued that both the lower fora were wrong in presuming that the alleged communication about the change of address of the Respondent/Complainant was received in the office of PUDA. She also argued that no action/suit/prosecution or other legal proceedings could be initiated by virtue of Section 21 of Punjab Act 22 of 1964/Section 171 of Punjab Act 11 of 1995 for action done in good faith. PUDA acted in good faith in this case. Hence on all those grounds the Revision Petition be accepted and order of the both the lower forums be set aside.
4. The sequence of events and this dates have been enumerated earlier. There is no denying the fact that PUDA’s acknowledgement of having received a registered letter dated 11.10.82 is on record, neither denied not rebutted by PUDA. This letter contained the change of address. Failure on the part of PUDA to communicate/correspond at the new address manifests itself as a clear case of negligence on the part of PUDA. Rest follows. It is only in 1998 during his personal visit to PUDA office, that he comes to know for the first time of his case. Obviously the cause of action starts from this date and not from any other date. What and where is the ground for the Respondent/Complainant to initiate case earlier then this date? After having come to know the fate of his application in 1998 from the office of PUDA, he serves a legal notice and follows it up by filing a complaint in 1998. Where is the question of any delay and the case being time barred? We do not find any merit in the argument. Second argument of the Petitioner that the Respondent/Complainant is not a consumer because he has not been allotted a plot is simply not maintainable. In the instant case, he got no change to be treated at par with others for allotment of plot because the Petitioner PUDA continued to send letters allegedly at the old address in spite of charge of address intimated to PUDA by the Respondent/Complainant on 11.1082, which deprived him of the opportunity to exercise option to be beneficiary of the allotment of a plot in Sector 71 of Mohali, which was meant for Defence Personnel. Failure clearly lies on the door of PUDA and it does not become of them to proffer argument that Respondent/Complainant is not a consumer. Had he failed in obtaining after exercising his option only then he would have been in the category of not being a consumer. This is not the case here.
5. It is amazing that the Counsel for the Petitioner in spite of hard evidence on record wishes us to believe that PUDA did not came to know of the change in address. As District Forum observed PUDA neither produced the file of the case nor did not they produce the Receipt register of their office which would have revealed the true state of case. We are also not inclined to take into consideration the plea of the Petitioner that no suit can be bought against PUDA for action done in good faith for two reasons. As this was not the plea taken before any of the lower fora, we can dismiss this plea on this ground, but more ironical is the Petitioner’s plea that action done in good faith can not be challenged before any court-in other words wishing us to believe that the action of PUDA was done in good faith. Nothing can be far from truth. In fact the facts and sequence of events lead us believe to the contrary. Non receipt of letters, not accepting hard evidence of acknowledgement receipt duly signed by PUDA functionary, can by no stretch of imagination be stated to be acts of good faith.
6. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned District Forum and State Commission and find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.
7. Revision Petition is dismissed-no order on costs.