HARPAL ARYA Vs. HOUSING BOARD, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed by Petitioner/Complainant, there is challenge to impugned order dated 20.06.2007 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission').

(2.) Brief fact are, that Respondent/Opposite Party invited applications for allotment of plots in Sector-15, Sonepat. Accordingly, Petitioner applied for a plot under category of 14 Marlas @ 1,700/- per Sq. yard and deposited Rs.63,400/- as earnest money being 10% of the total cost of the plot on 22.1.2001 with respondent. The draw of lots was held on 14.3.2001. Petitioner was declared successful and was allotted plot vide letter dated 27.3.2001 but no plot number was allotted. Thereafter, allotment of plot No. 2740-C was communicated to the petitioner as per letter dated 17.09.2004, so to say after expiry of 31/2 years from the date of allotment. The grievance of petitioner he being an Advocate was in need of his own house but due to delay on the part of the respondent he had taken rental accommodation in Sector-14, Sonepat. During this period, cost of plot increased @ Rs. 263/- per sq. yard over the original price @ Rs.1,700/- per sq. yard when applications for allotment of plots were invited. Thus, total price of plot has been shown as Rs.7,39,100/-. It is alleged, that respondent enhanced the value of the plots arbitrarily by putting extra burden on petitioner as well as other allottees, which was not justified. Petitioner deposited Rs.1,95,285/ vide D.D. No. 072127 dated 16.10.2004 and D.D. No. 006597 dated 16.10.2004 in favour of respondent and he had also to pay interest @ 15.5% per annum on the remaining 75% of the cost of the plot which was to be paid within six months in equal installments. It was further stated, that allotted plot is 10-12 ft. deep from the road side, whereas abutting plots of HUDA were at even level. At the time paper possession of the plot was given to him on 27.10.2004 the site of the plot had been filed with 5 ft. deep water and at the time of filing the complaint the situation was the same. The roads, sewerage and water supply pipes were totally broken and for that reason plot in question was not worth fit for construction. It is also stated, that possession of plot had not been delivered to him. Accordingly, it was prayed that directions be given to respondent not to charge the penal interest @ 15% P.A. on the remaining 75% cost of the plot; not to recover the enhanced price of the plot @ Rs.1,963/- per sq. yard; to pay interest @ 11% on the earnest money deposited by the petitioner; to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as damages on account of deficiency of service, mental agony and pain and interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) Respondent in its written statement has stated, that at the time when petitioner had applied for allotment of 14 Marlas plot, he had deposited Rs.63,400/- as registration fee. It is stated, that advertised cost of the plot per sq. yard was tentative as mentioned in the brochure and after the draw of lots was held on 14.3.2001, petitioner was declared successful and was informed as per letter dated 17.3.2001 in this regard. The petitioner had deposited Rs.1,95,285/- towards the price of the plot and possession of the plot was handed over to him. It is further averred that, cost of the plot being tentative could be finalized after 7 years from the date of allotment as per terms and conditions (w) of the "HIRE PURCHASE TENANCY AGREEMEN". The claim of interest @ 15.5.% per annum was justified as mentioned in the brochure itself. It is further stated, that as per condition No. 6(iv) it was clearly mentioned that respondent would not be responsible for levelling uneven sites. Accordingly, it was prayed that complaint merit dismissal.