PAWAN GANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, the delay of 21 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

(2.) COMPLAINT in this case was filed by Pawan Ganga Education Society on 6.8.2010 for a direction to OP i.e. HUDA to pay interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant for the intermittent period from 19.2.2008 to 4.3.2010 on the sum of Rs.81,25,000/ - remaining deposited with the opposite parties and also to waive interest @ 18% on the balance amount payable in respect of the plot in question for the above intermittent period because of the opposite parties failure to develop the site of the plot of the complainant. It was also requested that the compensation of Rs.50,000/ - be also directed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant on account of escalation cost, mental agony, litigation expenses, etc.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of this case are that the complainant Society was allotted a plot for Primary School site at Sector 9 -A, Bahadurgarh measuring 4071 sq. mts. for a total price of Rs.2,25,00,000/ - on 22.6.2006 by the opposite parties/respondents. It is averred that the complainant has made payment of Rs.81,25,000/ - and he was ready and willing to take possession of the plot in question on payment of balance amount but the respondents failed to develop the site thereunder and in turn, to offer the possession thereof. The complainant, therefore, has sought interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs.81,25,000/ - and also a direction to the respondents to waive the interest on the outstanding amount out of price of the plot for the period in question because of the failure of the respondents to develop the site before offering the possession. The respondents resisted the complaint and averred that the possession was offered on 4.3.2010 along with demand of the outstanding balance with interest. It was submitted that the delay in delivering the possession of the plot in question was not due to the negligence of the respondents, but the delay was on the part of the complainant. Failure to develop the site within due time was also denied by the respondents. It was further submitted that the possession of the surrounding plots had already been delivered and as such, the question of development of the site in question could not be disputed. Denying deficiency in service on their part, the respondents sought dismissal of the complaint.