HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VANEET RAI WADHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner HUDA was the opposite party before the District Forum where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Complainant's complaint was that having purchased a plot in auction and having paid full amount, he held out three grouses against the petitioner. One, that the area auctioned was found to be less by 4 metres at the time of delivery of possession; second, there were encroachments on the area; and third, a Nallah existed on the rear side of the plot. The District Forum after hearing the parties found the second and third grouses as not tenable whereas the first deficiency was established based on which complaint as allowed. Petitioner was directed to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% and cost of Rs. 1,000.00. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission while upholding the order of the District Forum gave a leeway to the petitioner to settle the issue of shortage in area with the complainant. In the eventuality of the issue getting resolved order of the District Forum shall stand modified accordingly. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed. Respondent/Complainant remained absent in spite of notice, hence, proceeded ex parte.

(3.) Admitted position is that whereas auctioned plot was 271.80 sq. mts., but actually the plot measured 267.89 sq. mts. It is the case of the petitioner that difference is negligible, hence, did not call for any interference from the Consumer Forums. Rate of interest as ordered is very high which needs to be reduced. The question of fact of the dimensions of the plot have been gone into by both the lower Forums. In view of the admitted position of shortfall in the area sold in auction and found on actual measurements, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the State Commission. It is a deficiency of service and the complainant is very much within his rights not to accept the plot and ask for refund. Hence, we find no merit in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the question of rate of interest, consistent view held by the Commission is that grant of interest @ 18% p.a. which includes interest, compensation and cost escalation, is in order. We are unable to agree with the prayer of the petitioner to reduce the rate of interest. We see no merit in the revision petition filed before us, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.