KALA WANTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kala Wanti w/o Shri Gopal Chand C/o M/s. Nohar Chand Budh Ram, Commission Agents, Anaz Mandi, Dhuri (Punjab) had filed this complaint based on the advertisement published in various newspapers released by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh (in short referred to as HUDA) for the sale of residential plots of various sizes in Sector 15, Urban Estate, Jagadhri during 1991. The complainant deposited earnest money amounting to Rs.13,332/- on 4.4.1991 for the allotment of 10 Marias plot with Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh acting as an agent of HUDA, Chandigarh- opposite party No.2. On becoming successful in the draw of lots held by HUDA, the complainant was allotted a plot No.324 measuring 220 sq. mts. (10 Marlas) in Sector 15 at Jagadhri at a tentative price of Rs.1,33,320/- vide letter dated 23.8.1991 (copy Annexure C-I ). The complainant made full payment amounting to Rs.1,54,614/- through annual instalments starting from 4.4.1991 to 29.6.1997 which included enhanced compensation of Rs.20,878.60 demanded by opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 31.3.1993. The complainant has averred in the complaint that she made all the payments regularly in the manner prescribed by opposite party No.2, but the physical possession of the plot was not delivered to him. The complainant suffered mental agony and harassment for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 for not giving her the possession of the plot even after about nine years.

(2.) In view of these acts and conduct of the opposite party No.2 for the gross deficiency in service causing mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant, she has prayed for the refund of entire deposited amount of Rs.1,54,614/-, interest @ 18% per annum, Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation against escalation in the cost of construction, and amount of Rs.90,000/- as damages against mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs. The opposite party No.2 who appeared through Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate in his reply dated 23.12.1999 raised preliminary objections saying that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for lack of territorial jurisdiction. In reply on the merit the opposite party No.2 has admitted the contents of Para 4 of the complaint. However the amount of Rs.16,665/- was deposited on 28.8.1996 instead of 19.8.1996 and amount of Rs.16,665/- was deposited on 29.6.1998 instead of 29.6.1993. The opposite party No.2 has averred in his reply that the offer of possession of the plot in question has already been made vide respondents office memo No.5638 dated 10.6.1994 but the complainant has not come to this office for taking physical possession till date. The opposite party No.2 in his reply has not repudiated the fact that the balance amount due from the complainant had been deposited. It is the case of the opposite party No.2 HUDA that the plot aforesaid formed part of the land which was not in its possession even on the date of its allotment in favour of the complainant and, therefore, HUDA was not in a position to offer possession, actual and physical, to the complainant.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. B. B. Mittal, Advocate as well as the learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 i. e. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate and carefully perused the affidavits and other documents placed on record. We will now deal with the rival contentions of the parties. As far as the preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission is concerned, it has been pointed out that the notification published on 13.1.1997 of the Government of Haryana shows a specific mention of HUDA having its headquarter at Chandigarh. The respondent could not show any notification or document rebutting the notification dated 13.1.1977. Besides this the State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Urban Estates Deptt. , Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh has also' been impleaded as respondent No.1 and in all these facts and circumstances, the jurisdiction is not in force in the case. Hence the preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction is not taken into consideration. Despite the fact that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,54,614/- including enhanced compensation of Rs.20,878.60 she failed to get the actual and physical possession of the plot during the long period of nine years. The very fact that the opposite party No.2 failed to deliver the possession even after nine years, is liable to refund the amount to the complainant with interest and the damages for mental harassment to the complainant. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2 - HUDA is well established.