HUDA Vs. S K WASON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.11.2002 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Gurgaon whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainants direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to pay interest @ 18% over the deposited amount of the complainant till the date of electric pole is removed from the Industrial Plot allotted to the complainant.

(2.) Put shortly the facts of the case are that an industrial plot No.108 measuring 458 sq. metres located in Pace City-I, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainant as per memo No.127 dated 20.2.1995. The possession of the plot was given to the complainant vide memo No.767 dated 22.3.1995. At the time of delivery of possession of the plot an electric pole with high tension wire was located in the middle of the plot for which the complainant objected and he was assured by the opposite party to remove the same within a period of three months thereafter. The said pole was not removed within that period with the result the complainant approached again the opposite party to do the needful. In the meanwhile he also got the plan sanctioned on 2.11.1998 for setting up an industrial unit. He again approached the opposite party to remove the electric pole as he was carrying out the construction work started but because of the hindrance of the electric pole he could not start. The opposite party failed to remove the said pole. The case of the complainant is that he paid a sum of Rs.3,68,690 towards the cost of the plot in question but did not serve any purpose for him and accordingly he invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite party to pay interest suffered by him and Rs.2,00,000 on account of losing of his business and failure to instal industrial unit. He also claimed interest @ 24% per annum on the deposited amount and Rs.2 lacs for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him from 22.3.1995 till date amount is paid to him. The claim was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was not disputed that the industrial plot in question was allotted to the complainant and the possession of the plot was also delivered to him on 22.3.1995. It was further averred by the opposite party that the electric pole is located in the corner of the plot in question and no objection was raised by him at the time he took the possession of the plot. While controverting the other stand taken by the complainant it was pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on its part and for that reason the complaint merited dismissal.

(3.) The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, accepted the complaint and issued the direction to the opposite party as detailed in the earlier part of this order. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed.