STATE COMMISSION Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LT.Col.Mangal Singh Nagal, Appellant herein and complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') has filed this Appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the State Commission against Haryana Urban Development Authority and another, opposite parties before the State Commission and Respondents herein.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that in 1991 Appellant had applied for a 14 Marla plot located in Bhiwani under the category reserved for Defence Personnel by submitting an application along with a draft for Rs.16,020/- to the Respondent/Authority. He was allotted a residential plot No.1643 measuring 299 Sq.Mtrs. located in Sector-13 at Bhiwani vide allotment letter dated 27.08.1991 at a tentative price of Rs.1,60,200/-. The Appellant deposited another Rs.24,030/- on 09.09.1991 so as to constitute 25% of the total tentative price of the allotted plot. He paid the remaining amount in 6 installments. Despite several letters and visits to the Respondent/Authority to hand over the possession of the said plot, Respondent/Authority failed to do so and in 1996 demanded another Rs.1,60,422.50p being the enhanced price of the plot. Appellant refused to pay the same on the ground that till possession of the plot is delivered, Respondent/Authority was not competent to demand the enhanced payment. On 14.10.1998, Respondent/Authority offered an alternative plot to Appellant that since the plot allotted to him was under litigation and development works could not be completed in the near future, Appellant immediately conveyed his consent on 21.10.1998. However, even thereafter Respondent/Authority did not hand over possession of the same on the ground that development works had still to be completed. Appellant again represented to the Respondent/Authority vide letter dated 31.05.1999 and claimed interest on the amount already deposited by him. This was declined by the Respondent/Authority who however insisted that Appellant should pay Rs.1,60,422.50p being the enhanced price of the plot. Being aggrieved, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/Authority be directed to deliver him possession of the allotted plot in Sector-13 as also interest @ 18% on Rs.1,60,450/- paid by him from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of the plot, Rs.7,00,261.80p as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction, Rs.20,000/- towards travelling costs, compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

(3.) RESPONDENTS on being served denied that there was any deficiency in service in the instant case and inter alia stated that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, possession of the plot in question was to be delivered to the Appellant on completion of development works at the site. Due to circumstances beyond their control e.g., litigation etc., it had not been possible to do so. Further, the Appellant had not paid the enhanced cost of the plot in question and therefore, it was the Appellant who had defaulted. Appellant was also liable to pay interest on the delayed payment.