HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. POOJA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) has been accepted and direction has been given to the appellants -opposite parties to allot the original plot bearing No. 1719 measuring ten Marlas in Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat to the complainant, if it was lying vacant and if not allotted to some other person, and in case if the said plot has been allotted to some other person, then the opposite parties shall make payment of alternative plot to the complainant of same size in same sector on the same terms and conditions on which the original plot was allotted. The complainant shall be liable to pay the remaining costs of the plot with interest and penalty as per the rules of the HUDA. The compliance of this order was to be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

(2.) CONCISELY , the facts of the present case as can be gathered from the record are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 1719 measuring 10 Marlas located in Sector -18, HUDA, Panipat as per letter bearing Memo No. 9700 dated 30.7.1998 on a tentative price of Rs. 4,63,750. The complainant had deposited 10% of the earnest money at the time of submitting application for allotment of the plot and thereafter deposited 15% of the cost of the plot after the allotment was made to her. It is the case of the complainant that she had deposited instalments of the plot in question from time -to -time. Subsequently, the opposite parties informed the complainant to take possession of the plot in question vide letter No. 10638 dated 14.9.2001 issued to the complainant but as the development works in the Sector where the plot was allotted to the complainant, was incomplete, the complainant could not take possession of the plot. The opposite parties issued another letter to the complainant to deposit enhanced price in respect of the plot in question and as such the complainant felt harassment and for that reason she surrendered the plot to the opposite parties. The opposite parties deducted 10% of the total price of the plot and refunded the balance amount to her.

(3.) TERMING the action of the opposite parties as illegal, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to restore her the plot in question and to adjust 10% already deducted amount towards the price of the plot. She, further prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000 for mental agony and Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses.