NASEEM BEGUM Vs. LAXMI NARAIN ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to remove the deficiencies by providing basic amenities like street lights, water supply toilets, road, 16ft. wide pavements for the site as show in the PUDA's site plan, sewerage connection and parking within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order with interest @ 18% p. a. over the amount of deposit from the respective dates of deposits till the possession of the plot was offered along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and also cost of Rs. 3,000.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as under: the respondent-Mrs. Mandeep Kang in response to an advertisement in an auction for sale of free hold commercial sites situated at Crystal Plaza, Chotti Baradari, Jalandhar, Punjab on 29. 8. 2001 at PUDA Complex was allotted a SCO for a sum of Rs. 21,12,048. She deposited the total sale price in time on the following dates:

(3.) IT was claimed that the complainant was verbally assured that the possession of plot in question could be taken within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. The complainant while sending the draft of Rs. 15,04,835 vide Annexures C-4 and C-5, stated that this full payment was made on condition that her interest would not suffer for any delay/inconvenience caused by PUDA in which case she would reserve her right to due compensation. This was mentioned because terms and conditions were said to be one sided, and till that date neither roads were constructed nor parking pavement was ready nor zonal plan was ready. The basic amenities were not provided and thus the area was not developed. Subsequently, vide letter dated 5. 2. 2002, she asked appellant to disclose as to when the facilities would be provided like, water supply, sewerage, toilets, roads, parking and 16' wide pavements for Crystal Plaza (Site ). The auction of shop cum office was held on 29. 8. 2001. Since the facilities were not provided, the allottee/complainant/respondent could not enjoy the plot by taking possession. She filed complaint, accordingly.