H U D A Vs. RISAL SINGH WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by petitioner, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) against the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by HUDA againtst the order of the District Forum who had allowed the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts necessary to understand the case are that the respondent/complainant had been allotted a plot by the petitioner in March, 1986 for which he deposited the full amount, in instalments by June, 1991, Symbolic possession of the plot was given in July, 1992 as this area was not fully developed. Rs. 12,487/- further demanded by the petitioner in August, 1992 was also deposited without demur on account of full and final settlement. Then suddenly in July, 1998, petitioner raised further demand of Rs. 20,805/- and Rs. 13,330/- towards extension fee. These additional demands, that too after years of silence by the petitioner, were not acceptable to the complainant. In these circumstances, the respondent/complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, who after hearing both the parties, quashed the demand of the additional amounts raised in July, 1998 and directed the respondents to charge non-construction (extension) fee effective 6.7.1994 to July, 1998. Complainant was directed to pay interest @ 10% on the delayed payment of instalments upto 12.8.1992, complainant was awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Appeal filed against the order before the State Commission was dismissed in limine.

(3.) It was argued before us that the Consumer Forum cannot go into the question of costing, which has been done in this case. Possession was given to the complainant in July, 1992 and, since no construction was taken up by the complainant within the stipulated period as per rules of HUDA the petitioner has power under the prevailing law to charge extension fee which cannot be questioned. It is admitted that only symbolic possession was given in July, 1992, how can the complainant be expected to commence construction on an undeveloped plot ? This question of fact has been gone into by the two lower Fora and has held this against the petitioner. We find no grounds to interfere with the order of State Commission and District Forum on this account. The other point relates to the additional demand raised in July, 1998. It has been gone into in great detail by both District Forum and the State Commission, who came to this conclusion that it was only on account of interest on delayed payments, major part of which has already been paid and rest has now been ordered to be paid by the District Forum and is upheld by the State Commission. As a result of this, petitioner gets his demanded amount. In view of above, we find no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.