HUDA Vs. M C GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent was allotted DS Shop No. 255 with basement at Sector 20, Panchkula, in an auction, he being the highest bidder. Tentative cost of shop in auction was Rs. 23,00,000 and allotment letter was issued to respondent on 3.1.2001. Though respondent himself failed to maintain financial discipline in making payment of instalments in time, withholding instalment, raised eye-brows against levy of interest by HUDA. There being no settlement of issued in sight, door of Consumer Fora was knocked, filing a complaint, and District Forum, based on findings recorded by Local Commissioner appointed by Forum, held HUDA deficient in service and while accepting complaint, directed them to complete development work and to charge simple interest and not compound interest, if any. Cost of proceeding of Rs. 1,000 was also awarded. In appeal, State Commission dismissed appeal of HUDA for belated filing of appeal.

(2.) Explicit case of HUDA had been that allotment of shop in question in auction was made to respondent on 3.1.2001 and development work had been accomplished preceeding issuance of allotment letter and also offer of possession and hence interest had been rightly levied on respondent. Right of allottee who purchases site/house in public auction to withhold instalments and deny payment of interest on premises of lack of infrastructure or basic amenities has been negatived by Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of Chandigarh Administration v. Amarjit Singh, 2009 2 CPJ 1 Hence matter is no longer res integra and in this backdrop, order of State Commission is set aside. Revision petition succeeds, and complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.