HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. K K KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by HUDA against order dated 28.10.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I), in Complaint Case No.857 of 1997. The contextual facts narrated briefly are as under :

(2.) The respondent/complainant, Mr. K. K. Khanna, in response to an advertisement floated by Haryana Urban Development Authority, impleaded as opposite party No.2 applied for a residential plot measuring 14 marlas (300 sq. mts.) in any of Sectors of 30, 31, 32 A part 30, 39, 40 and 41 at Gurgaon (Haryana ). The prescribed earnest money amounting to Rs.13,500/- was deposited in the authorized Bank i. e. Punjab National Bank, Shimla Branch vide Receipt No.8154 dated 10.8.1988 along with Application Form No.01550 (Annexure-2 ). As per averments made, inter alia, by the respondent/complainant, the allotment made by opposite party No.2, namely, HUDA was to be made as per Condition No.10 (C) of the terms and conditions given in the application form. The complainant has alleged that he did not receive any intimation regarding the allotment of or otherwise of the plot and his registered letters dated 12.12.1989, 10.4.1990, 31.5.1990 and 14.8.1990 did not evoke any response from the appellants/opposite parties. The respondent/complainant was informed by opposite party No.3 vide letter dated 7.12.1990 that he has not been successful in the draw of lots held on 26.3.1989 and his earnest money deposited of Rs.13,500/- was refunded through a cheque on 22.12.1990 (Annexure-1 ). The main grievance of the complainant/respondent is that he was not allotted any Registration Number or Code etc. by the opposite parties, so his application was not included among the other applicants for the draw of lots held by the opposite parties Authorities. The respondent/complainant has further stated that the refund of his earnest money without his consent by the appellants/opposite parties is against the terms and conditions of the application form sent by him. Also the complainant has contended that refund of the same after two years was illegal and the appellants/opposite parties were bound to allot the plot applied for by him. The respondent/complainant has prayed to direct opposite parties to allot a plot in residential area of any of the Sectors of Gurgaon against his application dated 10.9.1988 and till date he has not encashed the cheque of earnest money returned by the HUDA Authorities and the same has been brought on record vide Cheque No. QNH 302743 dated 4.12.1990. In addition respondent/complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.10 lacs towards escalation in the cost of construction, Rs.1 lac for mental agony suffered by him due to deficient services of the opposite parties and be paid interest @ 24% on the earnest money of Rs.13,500/- from the date of deposit i. e.10.8.1988 till date of decision.

(3.) In the reply filed by the appellants/opposite party Nos.2 and 3 under the preliminary objections the plea of lack of jurisdiction as envisaged under Sec.50 of HUDA Act of 1977 has been taken. The complaint has also been stated to be bad on account of misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The plea of application of principle of res-judicata as given in Civil Procedure Code has also been raised because an earlier complaint by the said complainant on the same cause of action filed before the Himachal Pradesh State Commission was dismissed. The answering opposite parties have also stated that as no cause of action has accrued against them, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Another plea of lack of jurisdiction of the consumer disputes redressal agencies at Chandigarh to try and entertain the complaint has also been taken as the property in dispute is situated in the State of Haryana.