HUDA Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Forum while disposing of the complaint of the respondent/complainant, directed the appellant to allot him an alternative plot in Sector -13 at Sonepat. The District Forum was found deficient in service to the appellant and further directed the appellant to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,000 on account of harassment and mental agony as well as Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses. During the pendency of the appeal, a Plot No. 47, Sector -13, Sonepat was allotted to the complainant/respondent vide letter of allotment dated 15.1.2008 on the old prices prevalent to the old allottee on 24.9.2001. The appellant in the said letter has accepted all the conditions which are laid down in the earlier letter of allotment and provision of HUDA Act, 1977, and HUDA (Erection of Building) Regulations, 1979 with the latest amendments. The complainant has also taken the possession of the said plot.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant challenged prayer with respect to granting of compensation of Rs. 2,000 as well as litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000 awarded by the District Forum. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment titled Delhi Development Authority v. Sanjay Mehta, 1999 1 CPJ 4. In the aforesaid case the Delhi Development Authority allotted a plot to the respondent/complainant on the original price in the year 1993 instead of 1990. Their Lordships of the Hon ble National Commission set aside the order of the Trial Court by observing that the complainant/respondent cannot be given dual benefit of compensation and interest as awarded by the District Forum.

(3.) THE facts disclosed in the present complaint are similar to the facts mentioned in the case of Sanjay Mehta , as in the present case the plot was allotted to the complainant on 15.1.2008. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation of Rs. 2,000 as well as cost of Rs. 2,000 awarded by the District is set aside and the order of the District Forum is modified in terms indicated above. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.