PARVEEN GOYAL Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Parveen Goyal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 2078 of 2002 which was decided in favour of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent')- The facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that he was allotted Plot No. 1068 at M.I.E. Bahadurgarh vide allotment letter dated 8.6.1990 at a tentative price of Rs. 55,495.60. Petitioner paid Rs. 18,550 being 25% of the total cost of the plot and the balance amount was to be paid in 6 yearly instalments. The possession of the plot was offered to the Petitioner on 8.6.1990 but since there was an encroachment, it was re-offered after removal of the said encroachment on 12.12.1990. Petitioner took possession of the plot on 6.3.1991. He thereafter got the site plan approved and raised the construction upto the DPC level for which a certificate was also issued to him by the Respondent on 9.11.1991. According to the Petitioner, he did not undertake any further construction because he was verbally informed by the Respondent not to raise any further construction because of a dispute/litigation between the Respondent and one Smt Sushila Aggarwal, Petitioner, therefore, stopped further construction and also sought information from Respondent/Authority whether any outstanding amount was pending against him to which there was no response. According to the Petitioner, he had paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,150 as demanded by the Respondent but since he felt that he had paid more man the amount due which was Rs. 77,575, he wrote to the Respondent/Authority to specify the details and refund him the excess amount of Rs. 1,75,574 charged by Respondent on account of interest on delayed payment and extension fee. Since no development work had been carried out in the area and the Respondent/Authority itself had prevented the Petitioner from further construction over the plot, these levies were not justified. On non-receipt of any response to this plea, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum and requested that the Respondent be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs. 1,75,574 received from him along with interest @ 18% per annum and to pay compensation on account of harassment caused to him besides litigation costs.

(2.) Respondent/Authority while admitting that the possession of the plot was re-offered to the Petitioner on 12.12.1990 after physical removal of the encroachment on it, stated that Petitioner took possession of the plot without any objection. Further, it was not correct that the plot was not developed since more than 500 houses and 1000 industrial units were already under construction. On the other hand, it was the Petitioner who has not maintained the schedule of payments of instalment for which a Notice under Sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17(3) of the HUDA Act, 1977 was also issued and therefore, interest on this due amount was rightly charged as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence allowed the complaint by observing as follows: