LOYAL MARINES Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, the Memo No.3876 dated 21.4.1999 in respect of the offer of possession of plot No.1107 located in Sectors 13, 17, Panipat issued to the complainant has been held to be illegal and the appellant-opposite parties have been directed to issue fresh offer of possession of the plot in question to the complainant. The appellants have been further directed to refund the interest amount together with extension fee of Rs.4,500 and Rs.9,000 received from the complainant along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposits till realization.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the case are that plot No.1107 located in Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat was initially allotted to Mr. Chander Gupta Bansal vide Memo No.6084 dated 20.9.1991. Said plot was purchased by the complainant and it was re-allotted to him vide Memo No.2250 dated 20.3.1997. The offer of possession of the plot was given to the complainant vide Memo No.3876 dated 21.4.1999. The complainant has also paid penalty amount of Rs.4,500 in December, 2003 at the time of the approval of the site plan and Rs.9,000 at the time of execution of conveyance deed in the year 2002 as extension fee. When the complainant wanted to raise construction over the plot in question, he applied to the opposite parties for demarcation of the plot. The Junior Engineer of the opposite parties visited the site to demarcate the plot who found HT line passing over the said plot and for that reason demarcation of the plot could not be given to the complainant. He was informed that till the HT line would be shifted, the demarcation of the plot could not be done. The complainant, then approached to the opposite parties by moving an application stating therein that the memo No.3876 dated 21.4.1999 with regard to the possession of the plot in question be declared as null and void but no action was taken in this regard. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to treat the letter No.3876 dated 21.4.1999 as null and void till the physical possession of the plot was handed over to him, to hand over the actual physical possession of the said plot No.1107 in Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat after removing electric overhead line from the said plot and then to consider the date of actual handing over the physical possession of plot as actual date of possession of the plot and to refund all the penalties already received by the opposite parties from the complainant illegally, along with interest. He also claimed Rs.50,000 as compensation and Rs.5,500 as cost of the litigation.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that after completion of the development work, possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant vide memo No.3876 dated 21.4.1999. It was further stated that existence of HT line came to the notice fo the opposite parties when actual demarcation of the plot was being carried out and the same, thereafter, was removed on priority basis. They justified the charging of the penalty amount of Rs.4,500 in December, 2003 as possessory interest and Rs.9,000 in 2002 towards extension fee. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions to the opposite parties in its order noticed above. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.