KUSUM LATA GOEL Vs. ESTATE OFFICER HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No.810 of 1996, Kusum Lata Goel V/s. Estate Officer, HUDA and Chief Engineer, HUDA. The District Forum-II has allowed the complaint with costs of Rs.550/- and directed the respondent/o. P. to pay sum of Rs.1,784/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p. a. from 22.2.1996, the day of decision to forfeit Rs.20,000/- was taken by HUDA till payment.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be mentioned as under : the appellant, Mrs. Kusum Lata Goel, w/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, resident of H. No.15, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh was allotted plot No.810-P, Sector 23, Sonepat by the respondent No.1, Estate Officer, HUDA and a letter of allotment bearing No.6651 dated 6.11.1992 was issued. However, in the year 1993, the appellant applied for surrender of the plot which was not accepted by the respondents vide their letter dated 4.4.1994. The appellant/complainant thereafter deposited subsequent instalments and in all she deposited a sum of Rs.1,19,590/-. It was alleged that in 1996 Mrs. Kusum Lata Goel, the appellant, came to know that respondent/huda was allowing the surrender of plots and as such she applied again for surrender of her plot on 1.1.1996. The respondent/huda allowed the surrender of the plot and ordered for the refund of the amount after forefeiting a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The appellant, Mrs. Kusum Lata Goel felt aggrieved by the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.20,000/- and alleged it to be deficiency in service. She filed a complaint before the District Forum-II and alleged that the amount of Rs.20,000/- had been forfeited without affording an opportunity of hearing to her by the respondent/huda. She alleged that she had been deprived of the said amount and claimed interest thereon.

(3.) The respondents filed reply and challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum-II to deal with the complaint case. On merits also the respondents defended their action in forfeiting the amount of Rs.20,000/-. It was explained that the respondents could as a matter of fact forfeit a sum of Rs.22,000/- but they forfeit only a sum of Rs.20,000/- and they had, thus, taken a lenient view of the matter in favour of the complainant. The District Forum-II was of the opinion that the dispute involved in the complaint case was squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA and Ors. V/s. Kewal Krishan Goel, 1996 2 RRR 696, and a sum of Rs.20,000/- had been rightly deducted in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. K. Goel (supra ). The complaint case was decided with the directions referred to above.