SONIA AGGARWAL Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of both the above mentioned appeals as they are corss -appeals arising out of the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula. The complainant was allotted a residential plot No. 1461/3 measuring 144 Sq. Mtrs. located at Kurukshetra on a tentative price of Rs. 59,670.75. The complainant had initially deposited Rs. 14,917.70 being 25% of the price of the plot. In terms of the allotment letter bearing memo No. 11204 dated 4.12.1989 the possession of the plot was to be offered to the complainant on completion of the development work in the area but the possession of the plot was not offered to the complainant and instead a notice dated 23.1.2001 raising a demand of Rs. 1,72,264 and penalty amount of Rs. 17,264 vide notice dated 23.1.2001 was served upon the complainant on the allegations that the appellant -complainant had failed to pay the remaining amount of instalments upto the year 2001. According to the stand of the complainant the demand made was totally illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for and against the terms of allotment letter. The complainant wrote a letter dated 21.2.2001 submitting reply to the show cause notice dated 23.1.2001. At the same time she offered to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 44,753.05. Finding no response from the opposite parties regarding offer of possession of the allotted plot, she made a request for the refund of the amount deposited but no action was taken. Thereafter, another letter dated 23.9.2003 was addressed to the opposite parties for delivery of possession and for issuance of possession certificate without any delay. A legal notice dated 27.12.2004 was also sent to the opposite parties in this regard but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Forced by these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed whereby direction has been sought against the opposite parties to offer the possession of the vacant plot to the complainant and to pay interest @ 18% on the amount deposited from the date of its deposit till the offer of actual possession of the plot, to accept the balance price of the plot without any interest, penalty and surcharge, to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs on account of escalation of the cost of construction material, labour etc. and to pay Rs. 50,000 on account of mental harassment and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses. The claim was contested by the opposite parties. In the joint written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant had surrendered the plot as per letter received from her father dated 21.1.2001 which was entered in diary at No. 1521 dated 26.2.2001. Taking action on the request made, the allotment of the plot in question was cancelled and intimation bearing No. 16437 dated 6.9.2001 was sent to the complainant whereby she was informed that 25% of the amount deposited in the year 1990 had been forfeited as she had failed to pay the remaining amount of the instalments upto the year 2001. In rejoinder the complainant reiterated her pleas.

(2.) ON scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the directions seeking offer of possession against the opposite parties cannot be issued as the plot in question has been re -allotted and the request made in this regard cannot be accepted. As complainant has sought for the refund of the amount deposited after surrender of the plot allotted to her, the prayer made was accepted while rejecting the other claim with regard to the compensation for escalation cost of Rs. 4 lacs and Rs. 50,000 on account of harassment. Accordingly, directions were issued to the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 9% w.e.f. the date of deposit till realization and also to pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of proceedings. Dissatisfied with the said order, both the parties filed separate appeals.

(3.) MOTHER of the appellant -complainant in First Appeal No. 100 of 2006 and learned Counsel representing the appellant -opposite parties in First Appeal No. 145 of 2006 have been heard at length.