PUSHPA BHUTANI Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, direction has been given to the appellants-opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,21,000 in respect of plot No.421-B located in Sector-6, HUDA, Panipat, made on the basis of floatation of rates of the said plot. The opposite parties have further been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,000 to the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.2,200. The compliance of this order was to be made within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.

(2.) In order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal, few facts need to be noticed. In response to the advertisement made by the opposite parties the complainant submitted his application No.012579 dated 11.11.1992 along with earnest money of Rs.11,200 deposited vide receipt No.996 on 11.11.1992 in the Union Bank of India Branch. Thereafter, the complainant was allotted plot No.228 measuring 138.6 sq. metres situtated in Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat as per allotment letter bearing memo No.6736 dated 24.9.1993 on a tentative price of Rs.1,12,000. In terms of the allotment letter the complainant deposited Rs.16,800 vide receipt No.300751 dated 18.10.1993 with the opposite parties. The balance price of the plot was paid in instalments of Rs.14,000 by the complainant to the opposite parties on different dates, the details of which have been given in para No.2 of the complaint. The possession of the plot was to be given to the complainant after completion of the development work in the area where the allotted plot is located. The complainant approached the opposite parties in the last week of November, 2004 for handing over the physical possession of the allotted plot but in reply received a letter bearing No.667 dated 21.1.1999 whereby he was offered alternative plot No.421-B, located in Sector-6, HUDA, Panipat, on the same terms and conditions at which the original plot was allotted, in lieu of the earlier plot allotted to the complainant which was under encroachment/litigation and sought the consent of the complainant in this regard. The complainant gave his consent and paid the last and final payment of Rs.14,000 on 20.9.1999 of the original plot to the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant received another demand notice of Rs.42,041 towards the additional price of the original plot on account of enhanced compensation of the land, which amount was also paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for delivery of the possession of the alternative plot so allotted, but he was informed that it would be delivered on completion of amenities in the month of November, 2004. The complainant accordingly approached the opposite parties in the last week of November, 2004 for delviery of possession of the alternative plot but he was asked by the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.1,21,000 being the difference of rates of interest on the alternative plot given to him. Challenging the legality of the demand made, the complainant filed the present complaint.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was admitted by them that the possession of the plot No.228 located in Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat so allotted initially to the complainant could not be delivered to him because of the litigation and after obtaining the consent of the complainant, he was allotted alternative plot for which the complainant was totally bound to pay the floating rates of the price of the allotted plot and justified the demand made in this regard from the complainant. They also averred that the complainant was liable to pay up-to-date price of the plot along with interest after making the adjustment of the amount already deposited by the complainant in respect of the original plot allotted to him. They further raised the plea of locus standi and estoppel. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum found to substance in the stand taken by the opposite parties and while accepting the complaint issued the directions in its order dated 22.2.2006 noticed above. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite parties.