DEVKI RANI Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal Nos.338 and 353 of 1992 being cross appeals are directed against the same order of the District Forum, Jind. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this order will govern both of them.

(2.) Way back on the 15th of April, 1988, Devki Rani, complainant purchased a shop-cum-flat No.23 in Jind for Rs.2,44,000/- in an auction held by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter called the 'huda' ). Admittedly, this purchase was made on the basis of a well-publicised lay-out plan indicating that the area would be fully developed and all the civic amenities like roads, electricity, parking, drinking water and sewerage would be provided expeditiously. In accordance with the conditions of the auction, 10% of the bid money was deposited at the spot itself and 15% of the sale price was deposited at the time of allotment and the balance of 75% was to be paid in eight equal instalments. The HUDA had undertaken to complete the development works and deliver the possession of the plot thereafter on compliance with the other terms and conditions. The complainant's case was that she had already paid 82% of the sale price in four protracted years which have elapsed since the date of allotment. But there was a marginal default in the payment of one instalment due on the 31st of May, 1991 for which a fine and interest to the tune of Rs.2,060/- was imposed. The primal grievance was that despite the payment of more than 80% of the sale price, no corresponding observance of the terms and conditions was made and no development in the area in question except laying down a few roads had been done. Aggrieved by the gross delay a compensation of Rs.90,000/- was claimed as also the setting-aside of the fine and interest charges of Rs.2,060/- aforementioned. It was also prayed that the payment of subsequent instalments be stayed till possession is delivered by the HUDA.

(3.) On notice being issued, the HUDA controverted the averments made in the complaint and despite the non-completion of the development works for well nigh five years after the launching of the colony still claimed the fine and interest for a mere delay in paying one instalment.