HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT Vs. ANIL DIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions as described in the headnote have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and are being disposed of through this single order and a copy of the same may be placed on each file.

(2.) THE State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission ') has passed two orders dated 20.10.2006 and 25.04.2007 in the instant case. The order dated 20.10.2006 has been passed in three Appeal cases, i.e., Appeal Case No. 834 of 2000 (Haryana)/RBT No. 367/2006 "Arun Goel versus Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and Anr. ", Appeal Case No. 833 of 2000 (Haryana)/RBT No. 368/2006 "Anil Dewan versus Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and Anr. " and Appeal Case No. 997 of 2000 (Haryana)/RBT No. 369/2006 "Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and Anr. versus Arun Goel ". The order dated 25.04.2007 has been passed by the State Commission in Appeal Case No. 996 of 2000 (Haryana)/RBT No. 173/2007 "Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. versus Anil Dewan. "

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that both the complainants, Anil Dewan and Arun Goel were allotted plots by HUDA in Urban Estate Sector 23, Sonepat plot no. 2316 and 1593 on 13.08.1991 and 07.08.1991 respectively. The complainants deposited 10% of the value of the plot along with the application and another 15% of the value on allotment, making a total of 25% as tentative cost of the plots, in question. This was strictly in accordance with the scheme formulated by HUDA for allotment of these plots. As per the Scheme, the balance 75% of the value of the plots was to be paid either in lump -sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six half -yearly annual instalments. The first instalment was to fall due after the expiry of one year from the date of issue of the allotment letter. Each instalment was recoverable together with interest on the balance price at the rate of 10% of the remaining amount. However, the interest was to accrue from the date of offer of possession of plots. It is also stipulated that interest @18% will be charged on the delayed payment. The possession was to be offered on completion of development works in the area. It is the case of the HUDA that the complainants did not deposit even a single instalment after the initial deposit of 25% and hence notices were sent to them under section 17 of the HUDA Act many times, but the respondents neither deposited instalments, nor appeared in person despite service of notices. Consequently, the allotted plots were resumed by Estate Officer, Sonepat, HUDA by his order dated 16.08.95 in the case of Anil Dewan and order dated 07.08.95 in the case of Arun Goel. According to HUDA, the complainants did not file any appeal against the said orders of resumption before the competent appellate authority of the HUDA. According to HUDA, the complainants lost the status of 'consumer ' by not filing the appeal before the higher authorities. However, the complainants on the other hand, have taken the plea that they waited for a long period, hoping to get the possession of the allotted plots and visited the office of OP many times, but they were told that the development work in the area would take long time and possession could not be offered in near future. The complainants wrote letters also to the office of HUDA regarding the delivery of possession but without any result. The area had not been developed on the date of making complaint dated 15.12.98, although more than seven years had passed from the date of the allotment of the plots. HUDA had, therefore, indulged in unfair trade practice, vis -a -vis the complainants. The complainants filed consumer complaints before the District Forum and the said forum vide order dated 8.5.2000 in both the cases ordered that the physical possession of the plots, in question, should be handed over to the complainants immediately and they should be further paid a sum of Rs.5,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/ - should be paid in each case for cost of litigation. Against this order, appeals were filed before the State Commission and as stated above, the State Commission vide order dated 25.04.2007 in the case of "Anil Dewan " dismissed the appeal of HUDA. Vide order dated 20.10.2006 appeal filed by HUDA against 'Arun Goel ' and two appeals filed by the complainants against HUDA were decided. As per this order, the award of compensation of Rs.5,000/ - by the District Forum to the complainants for mental agony / harassment was increased to Rs.40,000/ -. The appeal filed by HUDA was ordered to be dismissed.