GHANSHAM DASS GUPTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') assails the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in FA no. 1718 of 2008 dtd. 15/2/2012 arising out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (in short, 'the District Forum') in complaint no. 679 of 2007 dtd. 16/7/2008.

(2.) The facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the petitioner's mother Vidyawati was allotted a plot no.132 P, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal in the year 1982. After her death, the plot was transferred by the respondent in the name of the petitioner as per the decree dtd. 12/10/1990 of the District Judge under Probate Case no.6 of 1983. The complainant thus moved an application dtd. 12/4/1993 seeking permission of the respondent to construct a residential house under Regulation 6 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Erection of Buildings) Regulation 1979. The respondent accorded approval for the construction as per the standard design vide memo dtd. 13/2/2007, i.e., after a delay of 14 years. However, in 2001, the respondent had obtained an application from the petitioner for building plan approval under Regulation 3 of the Haryana Regulations on the grounds that the standard type design did not apply to the plot in question in view of its size. The petitioner applied on 6/2/2007 for demarcation of the plot in question and submitted the required documents on 4/4/2007. However, it is alleged by the petitioner that same was arbitrarily delayed which constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the respondent. The petitioner approached the District Forum, Karnal and sought directions for treating the period from 12/4/1993 to 13/2/2007 and from 31/12/2006 to 30/9/2007 as 'zero period', on account of the delay caused by the respondent and to pay compensation for the cost escalation as per the indexed cost of assets for taxation to execute the conveyance deed. The petitioner has also claimed Rs.2,50,000.00 as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.25,000.00 for wastage on plans and Rs.20,000.00 as costs.

(3.) The complaint was decided by the District Forum on contest. The respondent argued on the maintainability of the complaint stating that a civil suit had been filed by the petitioner in the year 2002 which was dismissed on 16/5/2005 and the appeal was also dismissed on 24/1/2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. It was stated that the petitioner had challenged this order in the Hon'ble High Court which was pending. As per the order dtd. 24/1/2006 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, the complainant was required to obtain the standard design approval from the respondent on payment of prescribed fees which had not been done. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.