HUDA Vs. ANKIT TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by impugned order dated 30.08.2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission') in (First Appeal No.1125 of 2010), have filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( for short, 'Act').

(2.) Brief facts are that, Plot No.2204, Sector-28, Panchkula was allotted to the Respondent/Complainant by petitioners, vide memo dated 3.11.2006 @ Rs,5980/- per sq. mts. at tentative price of Rs.13,28,756/-. After allotment, respondent deposited amount of Rs.2,07,207/- demanded by the petitioners towards 15%, through draft no.012735 dated 24.11.2006. Alongwith allotment letter, petitioners also issued another letter of offer of possession vide memo dated 3.11.2006, stating therein that possession of the plot could be obtained by visiting personally or through some authorized person in their office on any working day between 3.00 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. within 30 days from the issuance of this letter. It is stated, that as per clause no.6 of the allotment letter, interest @ 9% p.a. on the remaining amount of installments would accrue from this date i.e. 3.11.2006. After receiving the letter, respondent along with his father and his counsel visited the spot and found that no amenity was provided by the petitioners, such as road, sewerage pipe line, water pipe lines, electric line etc. which are essential before offering the possession of the plot. Petitioners assured the respondent, that they would provide the same very shortly, within one month. The respondent again visited on the spot on 20.5.2007 but till then petitioners had not provided the basic amenities. Respondent issued legal notice upon the petitioners and again visited the spot on 15.10.2007 and found installations of electric poles without wires. Thereafter, respondent sent reminder notice dated 22.10.2007 to the petitioners. They replied on 4.1.2008, stating that development works have already stand completed as on 3.11.2006 around the said plot. However, this is against the factual position. Respondent also deposited the second installment of Rs. 2,66,095/- plus Rs. 89,691/- on 1.11.2007, which was due on 2.11.2007. The petitioners wrongly and illegally, without completion of development works over the plot of the respondent having received the amount of Rs. 1,64,434/-, which they are liable to refund interest and are not entitled to get the interest on the remaining amount, till completion of the development work. This act of the petitioners caused him great mental, physical and financial harassment and also amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed against the petitioners.

(3.) Petitioners in their written statement took the plea that respondent has no cause of action to file the complaint as possession stood offered to the complainant, vide letter dated 3.11.2006. Petitioners have provided all the development works i.e. road, sewerage pipe line, water pipe line, electricity line etc. as per the office report. Respondent has not applied for taking possession so far. Thus, respondent is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and complaint be dismissed with costs.