H U D A Vs. KAMALJIT KAUR AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case illustrates how officers of the HUDA have acted negligently in discharge of their duties in not defending the case. Relevant points were also not highlighted before the District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We further reiterate that proceedings before the Consumer Fora are not adversary litigation but are inquisitorial and hence even if points were not highlighted by the parties, even then, it was a duty/function of the consumer fora to appreciate the evidence brought on record and to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. FACTS:

(2.) COMPLAINANT , Smt. Kamaljit Kaur filed CPA No.625/15th July 1997 in the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, wherein her main grievance was that HUDA wrongfully demanded enhanced price of the plot and the same was Rs.29,225/- and secondly for the interest charged. It was prayed that HUDA be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.26,134.42p. + Rs.3057.77p. which was the interest recovered by HUDA on the instalments. She also prayed that HUDA be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical torture and harassment caused to the complainant.

(3.) THE District Forum arrived at the conclusion that draw of lots took place in 1985 and as the possession was offered in April 1992, there was delay of about 7 years in delivery of possession. The District Forum further arrived at the conclusion that normally for development activities, it should not take more than 3-4 years. Thereafter, without specifying any amount, it vaguely ordered that the HUDA should not recover interest on the instalments of tentative price till the date of the offer of the possession. If any amount is paid after the date of the offer of possession, HUDA can charge interest at the rate permissible under the Rules. HUDA can also charge interest on the enhanced amount in case it was not paid within a month of the receipt of the demand notice. Finally, it ordered that HUDA shall pay compensation for the delay in handing over possession from the date when HUDA had handed over possession to other plot-holders in Sector in question till the date of payment at the rate of 15%.Against that order, complainant preferred First Appeal No.46/1998. That appeal was summarily dismissed by the State Commission by observing that there was no material on record for enhancing compensation. That order was passed on 7.4.1999. Against that order, complainant has preferred this Revision Petition No.1998/1999.