HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PREM PARKASH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant.

(2.) Complainant's case was that on the plot allotted to him by the petitioner there was construction by some third party. Since petitioner did not help the complainant to sort out his complaint, he went to the District Forum. District Forum directed refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation. Aggrieved, petitioner went to the State Commission which dismissed the appeal but reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 12%, thus modifying the order of the District Forum. It is contended by Mr. Mor, learned Counsel of the petitioners that possession of the plot was given to the complainant on 4.7.1994 under an agreement when there was no lease or sale deed executed in his favour. Mr. Mor could not tell us whether it was only a paper possession or actual physical possession given to the complainant. He says on 12.7.2000 when the complainant went to construct on the plot he found that some third party had made construction thereon. We wanted to know from Mr. Mor as to who this third party was and whether the construction was authorised or unauthorised. He said this was unauthorised construction. The quesion is as to how unauthorised construction in the face of the HUDA had come up in the colony developed and controlled by it. This construction could not have come up with the connivance of the officials of the HUDA. Be that as it may, complainant had certainly right to alternative plot or refund of the money with interest. District Forum directed refund of money to him with interest @ 15% per annum which order was upheld by the State Commission by reducing the rate of interest to 12% per annum.

(3.) We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. However, HUDA will be in its right to take action against the person who had made construction in the property in question. Revision Petition dismissed.