HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. TRILOK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by opposite party - Housing Board Haryana against order dated 25.10.2001 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - Hisar (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which complaint of respondents was accepted and appellant was directed to pay interest to the respondents (complainants) @ 15% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by them from the date of deposit till the full development of the area was done and fresh offer of possession after development of the area was made. The appellant was further directed not to charge any interest or penalty from the respondents on the amount of instalments due till fresh offer of possession after fully developing the area and providing civic amenities as published in the newspaper dated 2.7.2001 are provided.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondents (complainants) had purchased shop -cum -offices against their names and the appellants had assured that development work would be completed within one month and possession of the same would be given after completing development work in all respects like road, sewerage, electricity, pavement, parking, fencing, etc. In the layout plan these amenities were mentioned. On the assurance of appellant they had purchased shop -cum -offices and had deposited the required amounts. In fact they had purchased sites in order to raise construction immediately and start business in the shops but despite spending huge amount they were not able to make construction as civil amenities were not provided. Since, civic amenities had not been provided, so, they were entitled to interest @ 24% on the entire amount deposited by them and prayed for the refund of same and further not to charge interest on the remaining amount till the development work was completed.

(3.) APPELLANT contested the complaint. It stated that plots were sold on 'as is where is' basis and it was not responsible to level the ground. It further stated that possession of some of sites had already been given. It denied that there was any negligence in providing civil amenities and in developing the area. It further stated that the area had been developed and there was no deficiency in service on their part and as such complaint should be dismissed.