N N SHARMA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this common order we shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals having arisen out of the order dated 7.1.2009 passed in complaint No. 203/2009 by District Consumer Forum, Panchkula.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the present case are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 205 in Sector -7, Panchkula vide letter dated 28.5.1979. The sixth instalment of Rs. 2,725 was due towards the price of the plot. The opposite parties adjusted the amount of Rs. 2,860 towards the instalment amount including interest towards the security amount of Rs. 3,000 which was deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. However, the security amount was erroneously refunded to the complainant by the opposite parties through cheque dated 5.7.1982. The occupation certificate was issued to the complainant on 7.2.1986. Due to the increase in the family and growing up children, the complainant wanted to raise construction on the first floor of the premises. The complainant applied to the opposite parties for execution of conveyance deed but instead of executing the conveyance deed, the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs. 57,370 from the complainant vide letter dated 8.3.2001. Forced by these circumstances the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to execute the conveyance deed after receiving Rs. 3,000 enabling the complainant to raise construction of second floor with a further prayer to set aside the illegal demand of Rs. 57,370.

(3.) WHILE contesting the complaint, the opposite parties justified the demand of the impugned amount of Rs. 57,370 on the ground that at the time of transfer of the plot in complainant's name on dated 28.5.1979, the 6th instalment was due which was to be deposited by the complainant on 26.7.1979 but the complainant failed to deposit the same and for that reason the demand of Rs. 20,935 along with interest was made from the complainant vide letter bearing Memo No. 1290 dated 1.2.1995 which accumulated to Rs. 57,370. They further took the plea that as the complainant was refunded the security amount of Rs. 3,000, therefore, the question of adjusting the 6th instalment towards the security amount does not arise. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint as under: