HUDA Vs. SAROJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent/complainant who is a doctor by profession applied for a clinic site with the petitioner. She was issued a letter of intent for clinic-site No. C-2, Sector-15-ll, Gurgaon by the petitioner vide letter dated 20.10.1994. The area of the site, so allotted, was 300 sq.yards. The price was fixed at Rs. 1,975 per sq. yard. The total cost worked out to Rs. 5,92,500. Respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 1,45,625 being 25% of the cost of the plot on 15.11.1994 and the remaining amount of 75% was to be deposited within a period of 60 days or in eight half yearly instalments along with interest. Allotment letter was issued. Vide letter dated 30.3.1998, petitioner withdrew the letter of intent, aggrieved against which the respondent filed a departmental appeal which was accepted. Order of withdrawal was set aside and the letter of intent was ordered to be restored. Possession of the said site was given to the respondent but as per the zoning plan, the area of the plot was 180 sq. yards instead of 300 sq.yards. Building plan was submitted to the petitioner on 21.1.1999 which was sanctioned on 25.5.1999. Petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 3.11.1998 enhancing the price of the plot to Rs. 3,752.50 per sq.yard instead of Rs. 1,975. The respondent deposited the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,33,312.50 on 13.11.2000 but on taking possession on 18.12.2000, it was found that the size of the plot was only 152 sq. mtrs. Respondent/complainant allegedly deposited another sum of Rs. 4,00,739 vide draft dated 13.2.2001 under protest. Later on the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(2.) Petitioner put in appearance and filed its written statement. Petitioner admitted the averments of the complaint, as stated above, however, justified the delivery of possession of 180 sq. yards plot as per availability of the land and further took the plea that the complainant was charged @ Rs. 3,752.50 per sq.yard because after the decision of the appellate authority, it was a fresh allotment. Denying any kind of deficiency of service it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

(3.) District Forum, after taking into consideration pleadings as well as evidence produced by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed as under: