SH. DINA NATH Vs. YAMUNANAGAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present revision petition filed by the petitioner (who is more than 80 years old) has challenged order dated 4.11.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh UT (for short 'State Commission').

(2.) Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant was allotted Plot No.103 measuring 160 sq. yards by respondent no.1/O.P. No.1, vide allotment letter No.1470 dated 6.9.73 in Sarojni Nagar Scheme at Yamuna Nagar. The plot was allotted @ Rs.35/- per sq. yard and the tentative price of the plot was Rs.5,600/-. The final price was subject to actual allotment at site. Subsequently, the allotment of said plot was changed and plot No.59 measuring 200 sq. yard was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter No.2184 dated 16.11.73 at the same rate i.e. Rs.35/- per sq. yard, thus, the total cost being Rs.8,750/-. Petitioner paid the earnest money of Rs.500/- on 27.4.73 and the security amount of Rs.450/- was also paid. The first instalment of Rs.1,688/- was paid on 27.11.73 and subsequently, 2nd and 3rd instalments were paid on 11.12.74 and 9.1.76. Respondents were to further take the final balance price from the petitioner after handing over possession and calculating the cost of actual measurement of the plot. In this manner, petitioner had already paid respondent no.1, a sum of Rs.7,877/- against the total price of R.8,750/-. The agreement between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was got singed on 4.2.74 and petitioner paid all the charges. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to the petitioner within 30 days of the payment of first instalment but possession of the pot was not handed over. Petitioner served a legal notice upon respondent no.1 and petitioner was asked to get the possession of the plot, vide memo No.263 dated 18.4.74 and get the building plans approved. However, in spite of repeated efforts, no possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent no.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that the layout plan of the colony is under approval and the possession will be delivered after the approval is accorded. In March/April, 1995, petitioner came to know that towards end of 1994, the acquisition of the land was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently, representation was given to allot an alternative plot at the same price but the same was not done. The petitioner who had paid a sum of Rs.7,877/- out of the total price of the plot amounting to Rs.8,750/- had not received the possession of the plot despite his best efforts. Therefore, petitioner filed a complaint praying that respondents be directed to deliver the possession of the plot measuring 250 sq. yards and they be also directed to compensate him regarding increase in the cost of construction, which occurred due to non delivery of the possession and also compensate him for the loss of rent for that period. It further prayed for directions to be given to the respondents to compensate him for mental agony and physical harassment caused.

(3.) The version of respondents is that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. On merits, it has been stated that the plot could not be delivered to the petitioner since there was no proper development of the area at that time. Thereafter, a dispute arose and stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court. As per respondents, neither the possession could be delivered nor the amount was refunded to the petitioner because respondent no.1 was not in a position to refund the same. Subsequently, petitioner was informed that the case has been lost by respondent no.1 and furthermore there was no alternative plot and therefore, petitioner was asked to get the refund of money. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of respondents.