HUDA & ANR. THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINSTRATOR, PANCHKULA HARYANA Vs. TARSEM LAL GOYAL S/O SH JAI BHAGWAN GOYAL, R/O RAILWAY ROAD, NARWANA JIND HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner authority being aggrieved of concurrent finding of the foras below against him has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner opposite party had allotted plot no. 1961, Sector 28, Panchkula to one Poonam Bhardwaj for a tentative price of Rs.8,62,150/-. Allotee Poonam Bhardwaj paid 25% of the tentative price and the balance was to be paid in instalments. Thereafter, Poonam Bhardwaj sold her plot to the respondent complainant and on application being made in this regard, the plot was re-alloted to the complainant who kept on paying instalment regularly. The petitioner vide letter dated 23.06.2006 offered possession of the flat to the complainant. Case of the complainant is that on visiting the site, the complainant found unauthorized structure on the subject plot besides few plots. Thereafter, the complainant vide his application dated 20.07.2009 approached the opposite party seeking delivery of actual physical possession. The said letter was followed by a reminder dated 13.08.2009. It is alleged that opposite party instead of delivering physical possession of the plot demanded a sum of Rs.8492/- as extension fee from the complainant which was deposited on 02.03.2009. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that opposite party has committed deficiency in service by charging interest on the balance instalments and also wrongfully charging the extension fee without the delivery of possession.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the complaint. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the consumer complaint was not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the reallotment letter. On merits, it was pleaded that complainant himself failed to obtain the possession, pursuant to the offer of possession given vide letter dated 23.06.2006. He kept silent for three years and only on 20.07.2009, approached the opposite party for taking physical possession of the plot, pursuant to which possession was delivered on 07.10.2009. It was pleaded on behalf of the opposite party that respondent complainant himself is to be blamed for delay in delivery of physical possession. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.