HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BANARSI DASS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.4.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat in complaint No. 119/2009 whereby the opposite party (appellant herein) has been held deficient for charging extension fee and interest on the price of excess area of plot allotted to the respondent -complainant. The observations made by the District Forum are as under:

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the present case as can be gathered from the record are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 7 -P in Sector 13 -17, Urban Estate, Panipat vide allotment letter No. 6402 dated 22.9.1993. As the plot was found under litigation, the complainant was allotted an alternative plot No. 1882 -P in the same sector vide letter No. 6704 dated 23.6.1999. The complainant deposited Rs. 2,63,028 towards the price of the plot with the opposite party in instalments and also deposited Rs. 59,901 on account of enhancement in the price of the plot. The opposite party demanded Rs. 69,000 as extension fee due to non -construction on the plot which was also deposited by the complainant on 22.5.2008. vide letter No. 4561 dated 27.2.2009 the opposite party informed the complainant that the area of the alternative plot was 246.40 sq. mtrs instead of 209 sq. mtrs for which the opposite party demanded Rs. 1,12,700 from the complainant as enhanced area price along with interest and extension fee. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he was never informed by the opposite party about excess area of his plot prior to the letter dated 27.2.2009 and as the measurement of the plot was not done by the opposite party, the complainant could not raise construction. Thus, alleging it as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 69,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 22.5.2008 till its realization and not to recover the amount of Rs. 67,567 as interest on 15,770 from the complainant. The complainant also sought compensation of Rs. 25,000 for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 11,000 as litigation expenses.

(3.) UPON notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement, the opposite party justified the demand of extension fee as well as the price of the excess area of the plot, along with interest and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.