ORDER : 1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4-1-2011 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the appellant's challenge to the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short “the State Commission”) dismissing the complaint filed by him on the ground that he had already availed the remedy of appeal was negatived. 2. The appellant purchased Plot No. 4228 (measuring 420 sq m) situated in Sector E, Defence Colony, Urban Estate, Jind from the original allottee, Shishpal Singh. He applied for transfer of the plot, which was duly approved by the competent authority after payment of the extension fee of Rs 62,400. Thereafter, the plot was reallotted to the appellant vide office memo dated 10-12-1998. However, the building plan submitted by him was not sanctioned on the ground that he was yet to obtain possession of the plot. When the appellant got possession, he found that area of the plot was less by 11.25 sq m. Not only this, he was called upon to pay extension fee up to 31-12-1999 i.e. the date of delivery of possession. A further demand of extension fee amounting to Rs 71,688 was also raised against the appellant. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the delay in handing over possession of the plot and levy of extension fee, the appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) and prayed as under: “(a) That the demand of the opposite party referred in Para 9 above may please be adjudged as illegal and the opposite party be kindly restrained permanently from the demand and recovering the said amount from the complainant either now or in future. (b) That the opposite party be kindly directed to issue occupation certificate to the complainant immediately and also to execute and get registered conveyance deed of building constructed on Plot No. 4228, Sector E, Urban Estate, Jind in favour of the complainant without any further delay, since non-judicial stamp papers for conveyance deeds have already been obtained by the opposite party from the complainant. (c) That the opposite party be kindly ordered to refund excessive transfer fee, excessive extension fee, and excessive sale price at the prevalent market rate of 11.25 sq m to the complainant since bringing till date along with interest deem proper by the Hon'ble Forum. (c) That the opposite party be kindly ordered to refund excessive transfer fee, excessive extension fee, and excessive sale price at the prevalent market rate of 11.25 sq m to the complainant since bringing till date along with interest deem proper by the Hon'ble Forum. (d) That lump sum damages of Rs 1,20,000 may kindly be awarded to the complainant towards pain and sufferings of the complainant.” 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the demand of extension fee was justified on the premise that the original allottee had not taken possession, which was offered to him vide Memo No. 3050 dated 28-11-1980. It was also pleaded that enhanced extension fee was demanded because the appellant failed to take steps for obtaining possession and to complete the construction within the stipulated period. The respondent also questioned the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the appeal preferred by the appellant against the demand of extension fee was dismissed by the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar. 5. After considering the pleadings and documents of the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short “the District Forum”) allowed the complaint and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent inasmuch as there was delay in giving possession of the plot, the area of the plot was less by 11.25 sq m and excessive transfer fee and extension fee had been demanded. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to refund the excess amount deposited by the appellant with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit. The District Forum also directed payment of compensation of Rs 10,000 and cost of Rs 3000. 6. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of the District Forum was allowed by the State Government only on the ground that the appeal filed by the appellant against the demand of extension fee, etc. had been dismissed by the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar. The revision filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed by the National Commission with a cryptic observation that he cannot be permitted “forum shopping”. In the opinion of the National Commission, once the appellant had availed the remedy of appeal, then instead of filing the complaint, he should have pursued the alternative remedy. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the opinion of the National Commission, once the appellant had availed the remedy of appeal, then instead of filing the complaint, he should have pursued the alternative remedy. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view the impugned order as also the one passed by the State Commission are liable to be set aside because the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the District Forum was allowed by the State Commission under a misapprehension that once a consumer avails and exhausts the departmental remedies, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of any consumer forum and the National Commission dismissed the revision by erroneously assuming that the appeal preferred by the appellant against the demand of extension fee was still pending before the Administrator, HUDA. 8. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. Section 3 declares that the provisions contained in the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. There is no provision in the Act which bars filing of a complaint by a consumer after availing other statutory remedies. In matters like allotment of plot/land by HUDA and other similar agencies/instrumentalities of the State, whose functioning is governed by the law enacted by the State Legislature, departmental remedies are usually available to an aggrieved person. If such person falls within the definition of consumer under Section 2(d) of the Act then he can directly file a complaint under Sections 12, 17 and 21, as the case may be. He can also avail departmental remedy by filing an appeal. Once the appeal is decided and the consumer is aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority then he can challenge the action/decision of the initial authority as well as the appellate authority by filing a complaint. If the complaint is time-barred, the consumer can seek condonation of delay by filing an application under Section 24-A(2). 9. Insofar as this case is concerned, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant against the demand of the extension fee had already been rejected by the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar. If the complaint is time-barred, the consumer can seek condonation of delay by filing an application under Section 24-A(2). 9. Insofar as this case is concerned, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant against the demand of the extension fee had already been rejected by the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar. Therefore, the National Commission was clearly in error in dismissing the revision only on the ground that the appeal filed by him was pending before the Administrator. The State Commission also committed an error by non-suiting the appellant on the ground that he had already availed the remedy of appeal. The dismissal of departmental appeal could hardly be pressed into service by the respondent for facilitating rejection of the appellant's complaint against the levy of excess extension fee and delayed delivery of possession of the plot and that too of a similar size. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed, the impugned order as also the order passed by the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Commission for disposal of the appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of the District Forum on merits.