HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA for short), who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (District Forum for short). The petitioner/opposite party is aggrieved with the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh (State Commission for short), whereby it has awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the deposits made by the respondent/complainant, even though it was a reduction from the 18% awarded by the District Forum, but it has also upheld the direction of the District Forum to charge the respondent/complainant at the same rate at which the original plot was allotted to her deceased/husband, namely, Sukhbir Singh.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of the respondent/complainant was first allotted plot No. 2558, measuring 135 sq. mtrs., in Sector 23/23-A, Gurgaon vide letter dated 11th of July, 1988. When the same plot fell under dispute, he was offered plot No. 32 in Sector-41, Gurgaon vide letter dated 7th of September, 1989 but at a higher rate of Rs. 405 per sq. mtr., which was accepted by the allottee and he paid Rs. 47,970 demanded by the petitioner/opposite party vide their letter dated 31st of July, 1993 towards the additional cost of the land. He, however, expired on 31st of December, 1993. The respondent/complainant (widow of the allottee), however, came into the picture when the petitioner/opposite party issued letter dated 28th of June, 1994, offering possession of the plot, which necessitated her applying for transfer of allotment, which was duly accepted by the petitioner/opposite party vide their letter dated 25th of September, 1996. No arrears or additional demands for the price of the plot had been demanded at that time. When the possession certificate was to be given on the 30th of January, 1997, she was faced with the situation where a bigger size plot measuring 207.48 sq. mtrs. instead of 135 sq. mtrs. was given to her. The petitioner/opposite party had demanded Rs. 86,542 towards the enhanced price of the said plot which was also deposited by her. Meanwhile, in order to avail a housing loan by her son, who was a Government employee, she requested for the transfer of the plot in his name. It was then that the petitioner/opposite party asked to pay Rs. 1,18,056 without any details. She, however, managed to pay Rs. 1,10,441 on 11th of May, 2000. Even thereafter the physical possession had not been given to her nor had the plot been transferred in favour of her son. It was in this backdrop that she filed a complaint before the District Forum, who vide its order dated 2nd of December, 2002 directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of allotment till the date of physical possession and it further directed that if the respondent/complainant has already paid the penal interest, the same be refunded to her. Directing further that transfer certificate be issued in the name of her son Shri J.M. Singh, it also ordered that if the petitioner/opposite party has charged additional price of alternate plot, the same be revised at the rate at which the original allotment was made to the allottee. When the matter was taken up in appeal by the petitioner/opposite party before the State Commission, it disposed of the appeal reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 12%. Dissatisfied yet again, the petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner/opposite party and the Authorized Representative of the respondent/complainant have been heard at length and the records perused.