LAWS(NCD)-1995-8-78

HUDA Vs. VEENA RANI

Decided On August 30, 1995
HUDA Appellant
V/S
VEENA RANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by HUDA the facts are not in dispute. Complainant-respondent Veena Rani had purchased plot No.4289, Sectors 23 and 23-A, Urban Estate, Gurgaon in open auction on 7th of March, 1990. Ten percent of the auction money was deposited by her with the fall of hammer and 15% later. Though the allotment letter was issued on 23rd of March, 1990, yet the possession of the plot was not delivered to the Complainant for number of years. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant approached the District Forum, Gurgaon for the redressal of her grievance.

(2.) In the written statement filed before the District Forum, the Opposite Party-HUDA pleaded, that the development work was still in progress and had yet to be completed, therefore, the possession shall be delivered after completion of the development work. No definite time limit was committed by the Opposite Party. Faced with this situation, the Complainant dropped the idea of constructing the house and claimed only the refund of the amount deposited by her. Accordingly, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the HUDA to refund the entire amount deposited by the Complainant alongwith @ 12% interest per annum, for the period commencing after the expiry of period of 2 years from the date of allotment till the payment was actually made.

(3.) Against the aforesaid order, HUDA had filed the present appeal before the Commission. At the very outset when the appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ramnik Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that in fact during the pendency of the appeal, the order of the learned District Forum had already been executed and he has already received the refund of the entire amount deposited by the Complainant alongwith interest awarded by the learned District Forum. In a way, this has rendered the appeal infructuous. However, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum. It has by now been settled that a period of 2 to 3 years from the date of allotment is treated as a reasonable period for the delivery of possession of the plot and if the HUDA fails to deliver possession even after 4 years of the allotment, as is the position in the present case, the Complainant is certainly entitled to refund the entire amount alongwith interest, commencing from the expiry of the period of 2 years from the date of allotment. Therefore, the order of the learned District Forum is legally sound and deserves to be upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.